Talk:Northern Ireland/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 18

Protection

Okay, I've protected the page for a week as there is obviously some dispute going on over the recent edits to remove the word country. I know there has been a lot of discussion about it and I encourage the editors who were reverting against these edits to come to the talk page and get involved in the discussion. I know the edit dispute is relatively light right now but I've seen it happen before and I know this will escalate considerable in short order, so I'm protecting it before anyone gets too carried away in the moment and threats and blocks are required to keep things from disrupting the article. I've protected it to prevent disruption to the article which is not of benefit to the project. It's been protected it for a week, but that can of course be lifted if there is a consensus to do so prior to that. And before it's said I know, as with every page protection during a dispute, I've protected the wrong version. I will not get involved in one side of the discussion or another. Canterbury Tail talk 00:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be protected. I see one major issue here, what you might call the downgrading of Northern Ireland from country status. The other edits seem to be less contentious but still require agreement and consensus. Regarding country status, that point is referenced and is mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. To change it is just going too far in my opinion. UK government websites state Northern Ireland as being a country, so that is surely good enough. Van Speijk (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Van Speijk, I replied above to your request for "some quality reference that states 'Northern Ireland is not a country'". I'd appreciate it if you could reply there.
Northern Ireland is not being "downgraded". Wikipedia does not have that power. The issue is that there is no consensus in reliable sources (including UK government sources) as to 'what Northern Ireland is'. Worse again, those sources that discuss the question say that each of these terms ("province", "region", "jurisdiction", "country", etc.) bring POV baggage with them. It's an NPOV issue, and not one simply of verifiability. And the best solution, as unsatisfying as it is, looks to be to simply park all of them from the first line rather than picking one (and whatever POV it brings with it) arbitrarily. Later in the article, we can give the question the attentions it deserves. --RA (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Absofuckinglutely. It's long past time the lead was made neutral. People stamping their feet and saying "I don't agree so there's no consensus" might actually want to read the policy. 2 lines of K303 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail, a perusal of the discussion before VanSpeijk's blundering in will show that alternatives had been well aired and the weight of opinion was in favour or removing the contoversial term 'country'. What we need here is a simple NPOV lede, as had emerged from the discussion before the revert frenzy, and treatment below of claims about 'country', 'province' etc. Brocach (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A perusal of the history of the article shows VanSpeijk isn't the only one who disagrees with the edits, for whatever reasons. I see at least three editors objecting to it. So it's more than one objection. However if they don't come to the talk page to discuss it now, then feel free to put the edits back after protection has been lifted as they'll have had their chance to voice their concerns and give their suggestions. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Error in Demography section

The second sentence of the second paragraph in the Demography section states "91% of people are Northern Ireland born, with 4.8% being born elsewhere in the United Kingdom and 7.2% being born in the elsewhere in UK and 2.3% being born in the Republic of Ireland." Can someone with correct numbers please update. It might be that "UK" was meant to be Europe, since a number for the UK was already given. Either way, it needs correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.176 (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.Brocach (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, the 7.2% was a combined elsewhere in the UK or ROI born. It was a hang over from a previous version. --RA (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Dab hatnote - link to older discussion

For some years there was a Northern Ireland (disambiguation) page but it has now been whittled down to include only one other entry than NI itself, and has been PRODded. The hatnote on the main article now links just to the EU constituency. That's the situation we had before the dab page was created. If anyone wants to discuss it, you might like first to read the previous debate at: Talk:Northern_Ireland/Archive_6#NI_disambig. PamD 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Belfast bias of pictures

Of the twelve images on this article five are of Belfast. Surely we can mix it up a bit and show some other towns and cities? Bjmullan (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bit like how the article of Peter O'Toole only has pictures of him as T.E Lawrence then. Considering how the lede has become more diverse recently, the photos would be nice to take into consideration too! Τασουλα (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
We could definitely do with a couple of images in the sports section. Other than the Belfast City Hall one, I'm not entirely sure what the problem with the images is. I was expecting to see lots of vague dull shots of the city showing not much but buildings and rooftops, but I was surprised not to see any. I'm not counting the Orange Order image as Belfast as it's quite generic anyway, they could be marching down any street. I don't see a problem with the Harland and Wolff images as it's appropriate, I can't imagine any more appropriate images for that section but I'm willing to be proved wrong. Similarly QUB in the education section, if we're going to include one of a university then it's the sensible one to go for. Again I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, but I doubt you'll find a picture of a school that looks as good in terms of architecture? 2 lines of K303 15:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking if we could get a decent shot of either of the cathedrals in Armagh that would make a good addition to the city section. It could replace the City Hall or be an addition. I'm not sure about the Larne picture... Bjmullan (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the layout of the photos on the page, they're mostly on the right with a random one placed on the left. I think they should alternate each time or just stick to the right, I prefer the latter myself. I also don't like the random shaped boxes that tell of former prime ministers and current First Ministers and deputy First Ministers, I think they would be best left in the Politics in Northern Ireland page. I think a real effort is needed to make Northern Ireland actually look nice instead of some of the dreary photos taken in grey days. Mourne Mountains, Fermanagh Lakes, Downhill Beach/Mussenden Temple etc. are needed. Larne Harbour, the Orange March and the Irish Language sign need replacing with better quality more asthetically pleasing versions with a similar content. Finally, in the opening section, I don't like this wording... "Others from that part of the island prefer" thinking "that" should be replaced with "the". Any thoughts on my gripes? --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I like staggering images; more easy on my eye, but either way they shouldn't be so random. I agree that the boxes of names are much better relegated to articles focused on the topic of those boxes, removing them would also remove clutter. Not sure replacing "that" with "the" makes sense though, "Others from the part of the island prefer" doesn't make sense to me. CMD (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Article formatting & Good Article Nomination

I have just carried out a number of edits to the article and added some additional images in order to improve the article. Does anyone know what needs to be carried out to the article that would enable us to put it forward for good article status? Should we get a group of editors together to proof read a number of sections and fix titles as well as update outdated information? --NorthernCounties (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by sourcing the entire History section, since I noticed a dearth of footnotes even at my first glance at the article. Any maintenance tags generally result in an instant fail as well, or they used to. It might depend on which reviewer you get, but they would need addressing before the article could be passed as a GA. More to follow.... 2 lines of K303 15:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fist steps would be to get a Wikipedia:Peer review, in my opinion. I think we are still quite a way off, but a peer review might focus our attention on aspects we might not pay attention to. The article has been allowed to go stale in parts. Those parts should be reviewed. Some parts have too much detail on things that are important to former talk page discussions too. They can be trimmed down.
That said, overall, I too think GA for the Northern Ireland article is very achievable goal over the next couple of months. It's not far off it and with some work though it would easily get there. --RA (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest adding an image to the Troubles section and perhaps moving the existing image of the Orangemen up to the background sub-section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
If I might play devil's advocate here, while I am for NI becoming a GA, I question if section 5 of WP:GACR might prevent it from becoming one. Just mentioning something that may crop up in the nom. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
And of course section 4. Van Speijk (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully we can overcome those minor hiccups! Just wondering would anyone be against me removing the long list of villages/towns/settlements leaving just the cities like it is here or to get over the issue about lack of images in that section, make a table similar to thisor this? --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing the long list is good. I like the Swedish way and if someone else doesn't do it before me I'll modify the ROI article to be the same as it. --RA (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the Swedish one the most too, I'll change the NI one and give you the please of doing the ROI one :-) --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Northern Ireland

I do not believe the Coat of Arms of Northern Ireland has a place on this article. As we know, the use of such symbols is highly problematic. Added to this, the image included here does not make clear that the coat of arms is actually defunct. Therefore to avoid lengthy and convoluted explanations, the simplest thing would be to avoid the use altogether. San culottes (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but if there is (as I would expect) resistance from the unionist POV editors who patrol this page, the minimum required would be to extend the caption to state that the arms became obsolete in 1972. Brocach (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Since you insist on having your own POV placed on this page, here's mine; there are just as many nationalist POV editors here as there are unionist. As for the matter in hand, I disagree. The use of these symbols is not problematic, well, apart from with a certain group of editors pushing their own pov. Van Speijk (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Neither here, nor anywhere else in Wikipedia, do I push my own point of view. I am completely committed to the neutrality of Wikipedia and have in fact a professional background in reference book journalism. To remark that others with a POV patrol certain pages is not a POV but an objective fact. See if you can spot the contradiction in this statement: "The use of these symbols is not problematic... apart from with a certain group of editors". See also if you can get your head around the concept that those who disagree with you are not thereby defining themselves as "a group"; they may be lots of individuals who individually, and perhaps for quite different reasons, think that you are wrong. Brocach (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your evidence of this "objective fact". I note you only mentioned unionists, and not nationalists, in your assertion. Van Speijk (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If "Unionist" editors had their way, we'd have the Ulster Banner still on here. In fact, I recall that it's not on here because of a discussion which compromised by leaving the coat of arms as that was never officially revoked. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
QED. The C of E refers to Unionist editors as "we" and indicates that, exactly as I said, Unionist editors have an issue with removing the obsolete arms. Van Speijk, there's your evidence. Nationalist editors - and there are plenty of them - weren't mentioned by me precisely because they would not, in general, have objected to San culottes' reasonable proposal. Read again: I was actually suggesting a middle way and seem to have been mistaken for a nationalist firebrand. Ho hum. Brocach (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find CofE is using "we" in an inclusive manner meaning "everyone". Van Speijk (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's give him/her his/her full style and title, Van S: it's The C of E. God Save The Queen!. Nothing further, m'lud. Brocach (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yawn. If this little exchange isn't proof that symbols should be eliminated on this page (regardless of the self-evident factual issues), I don't know what is. San culottes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I was indeed using the "we" in context of everyone. The symbols section is there to talk about and show the symbols used in NI. The Coat of arms is there as it is showing something that is uniquely Northern Irish and was never dropped from it's official status even though its not used as much presently. That was what dropped the UB from the page (which I think now should be) as it was uniquely Northern Irish but lacks current official status despite being used in a de facto manner by certain organisations and people. Check the original discussion in archive 12. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
It might not have been official dropped but can another one provide a reference for it's use today by the NIA or any official UK government body? If not I suggest it's removed. Bjmullan (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The arms appear in the History section in reference to the 1922—1972 Government of Northern Ireland. The layout of the article does need revamping IMO, and a better place for these arms may be found, but for now I think that is the best place for it.
I would also suggest that the arms have indeed been officially "dropped" since the armiger no longer exists. --RA (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep it, but make it clear it's no longer in official use. The current caption may just be a bit too vague. Everybody's happy. JonC 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Everyone isn't happy. If it has no official status then it's shouldn't be in the article. It's place is at Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Northern Ireland and not here at an article about a modern NI. Bjmullan (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Bjmullan is exactly right. There seems to be what can only be described as an unforunate pandering to one side of this issue, despite clear evidence that what they are lobbying for has no factual or legal basis in reality, and this only serves to confuse the lay person reading the article. Sans culottes (talk 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
So can anyone give a valid and neutral reason why this symbol of a bygone Northern Ireland should stay? Bjmullan (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I can. Its part of Northern Ireland history, so lets move it to the Histroy section
I made this edit with the intention that it would be both netural and informative. I think it is possible to include it without biasing any perspective. --RA (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well I think if the article should/can have a obvious loyalist symbol then there is no reason why we don't have an equally obvious (and also pointless) nationalist symbol, or is that just a bit NPOV? And of course that's not counting the one which shows the twelve which is already part of this article. Bjmullan (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
An article on Northern Ireland is bound to contain images that are "loyalist symbols". (No more than the article on the Republic of Ireland is replete with what are "republican symbols" — from the tricolour down to a photograph of Dev himself.) I don't think NPOV is a zero–sum game. The purpose of these images should not be to paint kerb stones. If an image has a particular significance or importance to Northern Ireland, or illustrates some item in the text, then it deserves inclusion, I believe (while maintaining a neutral attitude towards it and other connotations it may have). --RA (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the Free Derry mural and the orange order march pictures are the correct balance of nationalist/unionist sentiment, as far as images go. The coat of arms adds nothing and could even be considered an unbalance of the article. Sans culottes 22:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that RA's edit was well intentioned but it makes it less clear than the previous text did that the arms have been out of official use since 1972. What about: "The Coat of Arms of Northern Ireland, granted to the Government of Northern Ireland in 1924, has not been used since 1972]]" or some similar wording? Brocach (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Van Speijk has undone this, with the bizarre and incorrect edit of "granted in 1924 ..... (1922-1972)", I would be all for the text Brocach added. I cant think of why it is edited in the poor manner it is now. Murry1975 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I would second this, Brocach's version was much more informative. --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It is not bizarre and it is correct. The government existed from 1922 to 1972 (dates in brackets obviously referring to the governemt in question) and the arms were granted in 1924. It couldn't be clearer. Van Speijk (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I still think that the image should be removed (maybe as part of a general improvement - see other section) but if it has to be here let's make the text at least clear. Broach 3 - Van Speijk 1 Bjmullan (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think removing it would be pointless as it would remove the last image on the page that used to be used to represent the country which I can't see would help anything and I think might be used against the page if it goes to GA. I think changing the wording to make it clearer would help. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Van Speijk it aint very clear bud. Hence why i taught it bizarre, I think the majority of editors who have commented on the text see in this section see that there should be an improvement with it. I am in the same train of thaught on it as The C of E with keeping it and Northern Counties and Brocach of changing the text. Murry1975 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, my intention was to explain how it was the arms of the 1922—72 Government of Northern Ireland but not comment on whether it is correct today or not (while stating that that Government no longer exists). In some ways, I intended to be deliberately ambiguous about it, while still stating the facts, and leave it to the reader.
Personally, I would be in favour of it remaining in the article. It does have a place — whether one thinks its place is in history or otherwise. It is also a means to represent the Ulster Banner, without the banner actually appearing in the article (as that would be even more difficult to integrate elegantly).
I think it is important that we don't simply remove symbols solely they are uncomfortable. We are not censored and shouldn't shy away from images that are challenging for one reason or another. Although we may look at imaginative ways to involve them in the text. --RA (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with the view that this symbol should go altogether but this long exchange tends in the direction of keeping it with explanatory text to the effect that it is no longer in official use. I see no support for Van Speijk's peremptory reversion, and some for my edit, so I have reinstated the edit. Van Speijk, please canvass for a better wording if you think there is one. Brocach (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the point made by The C of E and RA above and on reflection I feel that the image should stay. At least it should have clear text which I think Brocach has fixed. Bjmullan (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with CoE and RA as well. Regardless of whether it is still official or not (i think only the Ulster Banner is actually defunct), it is the last and quite possibly sole governmental emblem that represented Northern Ireland, and still features heavily on memorabilia in quite a few council libraries and tourist information points in parts of Northern Ireland. So i feel it does have right of place. Mabuska (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who is still more in the reading of the article rather than the editing of, I think that the caption needs to have a quick note about why its no longer in use. It'd be much more helpful to the reader if it said something like "was in use till 1972 when X happened". CMD (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, a further amendment made, hope this meets everyone's needs. If not, other proposals welcomed. Brocach (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I tweaked it slightly, removing the verb so that the purpose of the comment did not appear to be solely to say that the arms no longer have official use. --RA (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
RA may I suggest instead of "its",as in "its abolition", could we use the words "the latters", there are two subjects in the sentence, the coat of arms and the government, and "its" is still ambigious, "the latters" would show which subject is being refered to, just for clarity? Murry1975 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not precious about it. It will probably take a few goes to get it right. --RA (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to ruin your mojo bud :D No its understandable that the wording could take time to get general approval while conveying an accurate description of both the arms and government. Murry1975 (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Not convinced that the last few edits have improved it; particularly, "granted in 1924 to the former Government" makes it sound like a retirement gift, and I agree with Murry on the ambiguous its. Brocach (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing U.-Scots

I'm on a mobile so I can't change them myself, but could someone what's happened to the sourced Scots names at Belfast, L'derry and maybe others? I think a drive-by editor's probably taken them out, because they're MIA. Thanks. 175.100.100.41 (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is a "country" on the BBC every time they mention it - enough is enough.

Colin Murray on Match of the Day 2 tonight - "Northern Ireland is a great country". NI is a "country" every time I hear it mentioned on the BBC - whether by themselves, or via interviewed Government bodies, or whoever and whatever. Every time I immediately think of how you look away from Wikipedia for no time at all and the term is politically removed again.

So Ireland has never officially given up on reclaiming the whole island? What the hell has that got to do with Wikipedia? You cannot directly weight Republic of Ireland cites against British gov ones in this matter. You cannot consider using the term "country" a bias against the ROI - because the UK is a sovereign state. The UK not a position, it's a bloody reality.

Northern Ireland is routinely called a 'country' for a good reason - because it's NOT a few borrowed counties from Ireland - it's a country, and was clearly created to be what we commonly define as one today, whatever the terms of the time were (where the UK was often called England by many sites of the time). The term 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is all you need to focus on to understand this. And the countless evidence for everyday use of the word "country" too.

The ultimate wear-you-down editor patrols this page, but when I come back to this I'm going to hit it with a big fat full stop. The unremitting nationalism here is utterly obscene. "Consensus can always change"? On Wikipedia anything bloody can. Give people a bloody break. So much work done in the past has been thrown away. If anyone out there is enlightened enough to realise these UK issues are not actually 'LAME', this is a classic example of the reason good Wikipedia content editors are declining - because the sometimes-inordinate amount of work they do out of pure good will to settle a dispute, can be so easily written-out and linked-away from the site by a small group of impossibly-dedicated IP's and accounts. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Trivial use of the term "country" to describe NI is insufficient evidence that it is a country. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you calling the UK government "trivial"? (both officially and in daily use)? Do you understand that I consider that a slur on my country? Do you have any idea how sick people like me became (and no doubt currently are) of endlessly showing people like you the daily references that you know damn well are there (and witnessing the sadly-needed pages that compile them being hidden all the bloody time). Wikipedia does not demand that the term is for ISO states only. But regardless of that, you few warriors think that you yourselves can. The world has the term 'sovereign state', and Wikpedia uses that when it needs to. Along with explanatory text - yeuch! For the United Kingdom ("four countries within a country" as the UK gov states) it is obviously especially important that 'sovereignty' and 'country' can be used separately. You have no damn right to demand how specifically Wikipedia uses a term like this one. No damn right at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Matt, the reference that you claim for "four countries within a country" is an archived site - not a current site - dating from 9 years ago. It should not be claimed as a statement of the current UK government position - current UK government sites use other terminology. Please note that most editors here now take this matter much more calmly than when you were last active here, and it would be most helpful if you could modify your tone accordingly - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
What you just said about me there is an absolute filthy lie, said just because I'm het up now. Welcome back to Wikipedia Matt. What a place. I've been so patient and written so much for this place to try and improve it - in this area eso. And your comment on the UK government 'Number 10' site I quoted (rather lazily from memory)? The last I looked (not 9 years ago FFsake) it was up and running. Websites change obviously - according to you that is somehow 'proof' that they've 'changed their mind' on NI being a country?! What nonsense is that? What you are saying here is that the UK gov have backtracked! Show me proof of that? I saw BBC Parliament the other when Milliband used "country" - I'm certain Cameron has too recently - I just lose count - it's just ALL THE TIME, newspapers, BBC, politicians, human beings - anything and anyone except Wikipedia when people like you have taken control of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I upset you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
So the BBC is an arm of the British government eh? So much for its impartiality ;-) If you want to fix up the mess the government has about whether it is a province or a country or whatever then accusing people in Ireland of causing the mess is not going to be very productive. Dmcq (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The current text (part of the UK) is neutral and factually accurate. There is no need to reopen this discussion, least of all by ranting and accusing good-faith editors of political bias. Brocach (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Every time the BBC actually define country it's as a member of the UN that's a sovereign state it its own right. Well that's how they define it on Pointless, which is clearly the equal of what Colin Murray says on a football show...... 2 lines of K303 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The previous text was neutral and factually accurate. A number of editors didn't like it, for obvious reasons, and they are currently in the majority, hence the change. Let's away off to Wales and change its description to "principality" should we? Incidentally, you're right, NI is a part of the UK, but then, so is Anglesey. I've never read shuch POV-laden tosh as we now have in the opening sentence in all my life. Van Speijk (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Well if Colin Murray calls it a country it must be right! Calling Northern Ireland a country is just another POV. The new lede as stated above is both neutral and accurate. As for those who don't like it they just want to push there own POV tosh. Bjmullan (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you'll find it was referenced, and for those who chirped in to say it was "an old reference" well show me another reference from the same source, the UK governement no less, that negated it. Van Speijk (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. If the UK government say it's a country and an impartial news organisation says it's a country then I'd say that's sufficiant to say it's a country. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". It doesn't mean pick your favourite sources and state their opinion as fact while excluding all other that disagree. 2 lines of K303 20:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Despite what is written above, BBC editorial guidelines are to refer to Northern Ireland as a province (link). UK government use is all over the place: province, region, jurisdiction, country, nation. The situation is that there is no consensus in reliable sources as to 'what Northern Ireland is'. This is, as Seamus Dunn (2000) describes, a "specific problem" in relation to Northern Ireland. It is not one that we should be trying to solve.
The current introduction is neutral and factual. I cannot see how it is "POV tosh" to say that, "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland." That statement may not contain any POV's preferred terminology, but it is accurate and neutral. It is not particularly exciting, but "Wikipedia's articles are no place for strong views." (See Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers.) --RA (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Again you exaggerate and mislead people. The BBC has written (as part of a list of UK issues) "The term "province" is often used synonymously with Northern Ireland and it is normally appropriate to make secondary references to "the province"." They do not mention the term "country" at all. Despite using it every day. Why is that RA? Because it is not an issue here RA. Please don't MISLEAD RA. It's the same with Wales and Principality just above Province - they don't deal with the word "country" - it's not an issue. I'll actually ring them about it tomorrow. It find so tiresome.
Btw, in case anyone didn't know Colin Murray is from Northern Ireland - and was selling people his own country. What a bastard. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

For God's sake - NI is all day and every day a "country" - wherever you look. I should have known you'd all focus on 'Colin Murray' and snort about "The BBC" out of your collective noses. 'British' Broadcasting Company! Hurrumph. Not for much longer eh guys?

This is the cabal to end all cabals - how did it get to this? Ghmyrtle - you should be utterly, utterly ashamed of yourself. And what have you all done with Canterbury Tale? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's evident from all the discussions that the situation is rather less clear-cut than you seem to think. The current wording is more neutral and better balanced than the previous wording - that's all that's required of it. I'm not sure why you think I should be ashamed of myself for having that opinion - but anyway, I'm not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that you've 'balanced' sovereignty and COMMONUSE with people supposedly taking offence. Who exactly takes offence GHmytle - answer me that? Would it be nationalists perhaps? And you know damn well that this has been a war of attrition, with many people like myself happy for "country" here. It was here for a long, long time and you are all having to stick together to keep it from coming back. Why? Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
RA, could you show me where in that PC garbage from the BBC it says that NI is a province? It says something about how it's fine to make a secondary mention as a province, or some such gibberish, but it makes not statement that NI is a province. By the way, I'd be happy with "constituent country" [of the UK]. That really is an accurate description. Van Speijk (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Only those with a particular point of view use, or accept, the terms "country", "constituent country" or "province". "Part" is wholly uncontroversial: WP is not a platform for partisan flag-waving when neutral language is available. Brocach (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point Van Speijk. The use of the term country (however you want to dress it up) is consider a POV. Bjmullan (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
"Part" is utter nonsense. We know it's a part of the UK, just like every other element of the UK, from the smallest village to an entire consituent country. "Part" tells the reader nothing he probably doesn't already know. You might just as well say the UK is "part" of Europe. The reader wants to know more than that; he wants to know what sort of part it is, or at the very least some further information clarifying the situation. "Part" is not neutral. Neutrality doesn't apply to such a dumb description. Your take on neutrality seems to revolve around leaving out facts that you, or maybe what you think others, are uncomfortable with. Van Speijk (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
More point-missing. It's not about what "we" know; encyclopaedias are there to tell people who don't know, in objective, verifiable and neutral terms. Not everyone who uses WP knows that Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Brocach (talk) 22:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with me; that Wikipedia is for the readers and not for the POV pushing editors - so tell those readers what type of "part" it is. Van Speijk (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
We do - in the article. Over-simplifying complex reality in the opening sentence does not help readers' understanding. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree. There are 10,755 words in the article. We are not obliged to illuminate our readers on every aspect of a complex topic in the first 17.
As people read, the subject will become clearer to them. But the first, and most important, thing they will know about the topic is that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK in the north-east of the island of Ireland. More information follows as they read. --RA (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree also. Most of the time when I hear of NI, it is referred to as a "home nation," (not a country) a nonsense of a term if ever I heard one. Confronting often complicated realities is important and vital. Sans culottes 00:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that NI is a unique state and has no official or generally accepted unofficial description. Historically, it is six counties of the Irish Province of Ulster that remained in the United Kingdom after the other 26 counties were formed into a separate state. Furthermore, neither of the two sides in the Troubles ever claimed that NI was country, so it is odd that anyone would argue so passionately for the description. Note that the parts of the West of England are frequently called West Country, but that does not make it a country either. TFD (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a disgrace that someone has removed the fact Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom. If northern Ireland is not a country, i guess England, Scotland and Wales are not countries either and those articles will need correcting. Ill go and suggest that a bit later. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to learn the meaning of the word "fact" before using it incorrectly again. 2 lines of K303 19:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It is fact that there are numerous sources describing Northern Ireland as a country. I originally opposed the use of the term country on all 4 of these UK articles, but if Scotland, Wales and England are countries.. Northern Ireland must be one too and there was a consensus for a long time that all four articles would say a similar thing. If that has changed, then the other articles may need to be changed too. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not see that there is any dispute about what NI should be called, just that there is no agreement. The dispute in NI is about whether it should be part of the UK or part of Ireland. That is why I find this discussion bizarre. TFD (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Note this requested move of a related article: Talk:Demography_and_politics_of_Northern_Ireland#Requested_move. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Why has the article been altered to remove the fact that Northern Ireland is a country of the United Kingdom? All 4 nations of the UK are meant to say the same thing. If Northern Ireland is not a country, none of the other 3 are. Why has this change been allowed to happen? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Since reliable sources do not treat all "4 nations of the UK" in the same way, the article should not do that at all. For too long one particular POV dominated this article and was presented as fact, that has now been rectified. You can thank WP:NPOV for that. 2 lines of K303 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
"Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann orNorlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland." Is an absolutely terrible introduction which purposely avoids informing readers of information and tries to hide it in the pipelink. Northern Ireland is deemed one of the four countries of the United Kingdom, that is what many of the sources used to justify the term country for England, Scotland, Wales and for the countries of the UK article all say. if these souces are wrong, and they are not actually countries.. the other articles need changing too dont they? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It's also deemed a province by the British government. More pertinently, reliable sources pour cold water on the idea that it is in fact a country. You can keep repeating the same flawed argument about other articles till the cows come home, it isn't relevant. You can also keep trying for as long as you like to get consensus to add back the so-called "fact" that Northern Ireland is a country to the intro, but since it'll never happen I recommend doing something more constructive with your time. 2 lines of K303 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was made up of four countries - England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. When Ireland became independent, part of it remained in the re-named United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. TFD (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd support having something like 'variously described as a country, province or region' in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a good compromise. To use the word 'part' is plain daft. Of course it's a part. So too is any other 'part' of the UK. Your suggestion neatly overcomes any difficulties, provided the wording is succinct. Northern Arrow (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Dmcq, and I thought something like this had been agreed. However I have been on a wikibreak so not monitoring it. However reading the discussion above it is far from clear that there was an agreement to remove country. It looks like people just gave up which is not satisfactory ----Snowded TALK 11:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably gave up because no one likes to continue arguments on Ireland-related articles for too long any-more. Was DMQC idea put forward before by him/her or anyone else? --Τασουλα (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Also support Dmcq's proposal. "Part of" is silly, but, as Τασουλα said, it's a bore to just keep arguing, and it seems that's what happened here. "... one of the four countries of the UK", as was before, was fine as it was. It never said "Northern Ireland" is a country, like the equivalent sentence at England, Scotland and Wales. JonC 16:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Using the vague part of the United Kingdom is not helpful to readers. Hyde Park and Brighton Pier are also part of the United Kingdom. We, as editors, need to decide what to call Northern Ireland and add it to the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq's suggestion might work if it were a footnote - but to include that text in the opening sentence would give undue weight to a relatively minor issue of definition. Incidentally, the lengthy discussion that led to the current wording is archived here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "Northern Ireland is deemed to be a constituent country of the United Kingdoom" in the introduction with all the squabbling about 'country etc left to a later paragraph? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That raises more questions than it answers. "Deemed to be" by whom? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
OK I've read the archive and it confirms my view that there was no firm concensus for the change. RA has returned to this subject several times and eventually people gave up. I return to Dmcq's suggestion. Its not a minor issue, the description used for Northern Ireland (and the controversies) are a part of its history. ----Snowded TALK 06:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
All the more reason not to state one description as fact, as the article did for years. 2 lines of K303 06:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with Dmcq's proposal?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a strong objection to adding a few words along these lines, if most people support it: "Northern Ireland... is a part of the United Kingdom, variously described as a country, province or region, in the north-east of the island of Ireland." Further explanation is set out in the Description section of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see discussions have been ongoing. Im not opposed to NI taking a slightly different approach to its wording compared to the other 3, but do feel strongly that we can not hide the fact the position on wikipedia is there are four countries of the UK, if that is not the case we have many inaccurate articles. How about something like "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries (sometimes referred to as a region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west." That is very differently worded than the other 3 UK nation articles, but reflects there are alternative names and there could be a note attached too.. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Obvious failure of WP:NPOV in promoting your preferred personal viewpoint. Why not "Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as a region or country)" or "Northern Ireland is a region of the United Kingdom (sometimes referred to as a province or country)"? Those aren't proposals by the way. " the fact the position on wikipedia is there are four countries of the UK", keep dreaming and I see you still haven't mastered what a fact is..... 2 lines of K303 12:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I would rather your proposed wording there than the terrible introduction that is on the article at present. At least that would give a clue to what "part of" the UK meant. As someone above said, any town or city is "part of the UK" so its hardly informative. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm my suggestion sounds as though its talking about all UK nations rather than northern Ireland. So how about "Northern Ireland is a country (sometimes referred to as a region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and sharesa border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west." so that its clear its just northern Ireland the region/province description is applying to. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "no". It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to describe it as a country when the term is disputed. Do you want to keep going round in circles and getting nowhere? 2 lines of K303 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
But we are not going round and round in circles, there is an ongoing discussion about what the wording should be and there appears to be some questioning of if there really was consensus for the change that has been introduced. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The strongest argument for using "part of" was because it was deemed to be neutral while also being factually correct. Using any of the other terms in isolation (province, country, constituent country, region) promotes one viewpoint above the others. It's a case of all-or-nothing in certain respects - we can either list all the disputed terms, or go for a neutral term and explain later in the article. Personally, for the average reader, I believe the "part of" phrasing is a pretty good solution. The suggestion of including (sometimes referred to as a country, region, or province) might be inelegant, but also meets NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't, since it favours one viewpoint over another. It basically says, for example, that it is a country, but that other people describe it as a region or province. That's not NPOV at all, since it favours one viewpoint. NPOV doesn't just require that all viewpoints are presented, but that it is done "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". 2 lines of K303 13:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood. In line with what I believe Dmcq suggests above, the lede could state Northern Ireland is a part (variously referred to as a country, region or province) of the United Kingdom. It is located in the north-east of the island of Ireland and shares a border with the Republic of Ireland to the south and west. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My bad, I thought you were going with BritishWatcher's "country (sometimes referred to as a region or province)" proposal. The other one is ok from a purely NPOV standpoint, I'm a bit unconvinced if it's really needed in the first sentence though. 2 lines of K303 15:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think "variously described as..." would be better than "variously referred to as...", grammatically. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, what was wrong with "Northern Ireland is one of the four countries of the United Kingdom"? It doesn't have to say that Northern Ireland "is a country...", as at the other three, but it's not in dispute that the United Kingdom is a country made up of four constituent countries... is it? JonC 13:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it describes Northern Ireland as a "country". See above for reasons why this isn't NPOV. --HighKing (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, not really. How about "constituent country"? I don't think that term's in debate. JonC 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What about "Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom" which is basically the reverse of the legal name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just checking - you mean remove the word "a", from "a part..."? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Either, just trying to get editors to move from the words country, province etc. Just reverse the full name of the UK? --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the (wiki) fetish with "country"? There's no consensus in reliable sources, including UK govt. sources, as to 'what Northern Ireland is'. Additionally, other descriptions are arguably better supported as well as more accurate and neutral.
For so much as the issue exists, it is fraught and unanswerable but thankfully it's not very important to understanding the subject. It's not an issue that is suitable for an introduction (and certainly not the first sentence) without making a mountain out of a molehill. What is important is to state that Northern Ireland is (a) part of the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No new arguments here - this has all been done to death before. As RA points out (again), there is no generally accepted term for what it is, and of the possible terms, "country" is one of the least neutral. Personally I would prefer "region" but the last long debate on this point ended up at "part" and I'm content to leave it at that. Brocach (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I've never understood the fetish with removing it either. We've established that there are various term used, supported by the reliable sources. That makes Dmcq's a sensible way forward. There was not a clear consensus to remove it last time but I can see the case if its a single term. Reference to the various terms used makes sense. Such controversies are part of the recent history of NI and should be reflected ----Snowded TALK 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The "fetish" with removing it is WP:NPOV. Reliable sources simply don't support it while adhering to NPOV. Various terms are in use is correct but the issue isn't a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD (never mind WP:LEADSENTENCE). That's why I say it is a fetish.
A section in the article that deals with the question. If the issue that one that truly interests people, that section needs improving. Improving that might also shed further light on what reliable sources have to say about the question. It's doesn't all have to be about the first line. --RA (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
There are sources which support all the names used in the Dmcq compromise, and country stood for several years (you even agreed with it twice) so please don't misrepresent the position. We have moved from using country to nothing, without a full consensus. It makes a lot more sense to mention the three commonly used names in the lede. There is also balancing issue here with the other articles on countries within the UK. ----Snowded TALK 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
^^ I seriously doubt you (we?) are going to get anywhere with this one guys. Well, you could prove me wrong :-) --Τασουλα (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Equally doubtful that this will bring us any further. However I disagree with Snowded on the supposed need for 'balancing' - the fact is that the four parts of the UK have very different histories and constitutional status, and there is no one word - other than possibly 'part' - which applies uncontroversially to all four. England is unquestionably a part of the UK, so is Wales, so at the time of writing is Scotland, ditto Northern Ireland. However none of the first three can properly be described as a 'region', or 'province', but all three can be uncontroversially described as 'countries' while in Northern Ireland that usage is highly controversial. Brocach (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Whatever a "full consensus" might be, the chances of getting it here are zero, and it is absurd to argue that we should wait until it is achieved before a wording is changed. What happened in April is that a majority of editors at that time agreed that a new wording was better than the previous wording. So, it was changed. That is how we progress. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Fully appreciate that, but it was at best a bare majority and the change was made while discussion was active and I would have expected a little more openness from the main protagonist to a compromise. Brochach, its the fact that it is controversial in Norther Ireland that makes the various names notable enough for inclusion. ----Snowded TALK 04:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Is it all that controversial in Northern Ireland? I don't believe so and I haven't see any reliable sources that suggest it is. It is not a question that needs addressing to understand the subject and it is not a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD.
We should not attempt to offer answers to what reliable sources say is an unanswerable question. "...a part of the United Kingdom..." is the Occam's razor of all possibilities, and more detailed discussion of the question takes place in the article itself. --RA (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Well its certainly been controversial for you over the years. Also there are already sources in the article that say the question of what it is named is controversial - you yourself have used them in the past to argue your case. Referencing the multiple names seems to have around the same sort of support that removing "country" did in the first place, there is little question that the three names are used so its reasonable to change the article on that basis. ----Snowded TALK 18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Previous incarnations of the first line certainly were controversial and failed NPOV. But, whether the issue itself is a "prominent controversy" per WP:LEAD is different question:

"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources..."

TBH, from my reading of it, it seem like it is Wikipedians such as yourself that make big deal out of it. I haven't seen a reliable source that suggests it is a significant issue. If its importance could be established through reliable sources, I wouldn't object to reference to it appearing later on in the introduction (though hijacking the first line just to get the word "country" back in is POV pushing).
That is why I suggest working on the section in the article first. Through doing so we can actually go about establishing how important this question is to the subject and what reliable sources have to say on it. We need to be careful not to engage in OR and to avoid engaging in synthesis. We also need to avoid placing too much emphasis on something that doesn't appear to be significant (per WP:LEAD). For now, that would be why I'm not gone on the "variously" suggestion.
Would you be OK with working on the section first and then looking back on the introduction? --RA (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I remember we had a stable position for years but every time an opportunity arose you tried to change it, so I think its you making the "big deal" of it. A little less of the POV accusations and the suggestions of hijacking might also improve things a little, you are far too prone here and elsewhere to imputing nefarious motives to people who have the temerity to disagree with you. The best way to be neutral is to list the terms which are used to describe Northern Ireland. ----Snowded TALK 11:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that if we "list the terms which are used" in the opening sentence of the article, it gives undue weight to a semantic issue, rather than giving more important information about the subject of the article. I would favour a footnote, or alternatively RA's approach to see where it leads. The intro should derive from the article content, not vice versa. Can we please move forward on content, rather than make accusations about each other? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
As long as RA continues to make comments on other editors motives rather than dealing with content issues I am going to pushback, its disruptive and its become a habit. Otherwise I'm happy to see how the main content evolves, but I don't think the names can be confined to a footnote, it is an issue, there are clear sources that make the point that what you call it is controversial. Avoiding that in the lede is I think wrong. ----Snowded TALK 12:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The compromise along the lines suggested by Dmcq seems to be the most likely supported option to try and resolve the issues around the first sentence. Whilst i would prefer it clearly stating as the other articles do that Northern Ireland is a country of the UK, (either all 4 are countries or none of them are), i would support the compromise mentioning the fact that various terms are used. It is a huge improvement on the current wording and informs the reader. So perhaps someone could put such a proposal to a vote soon just to get an idea of where people are after the debate so far. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire argument of BritishWatcher is premised on the fallacy that because the UK contains three areas uncontroversially referred to as countries, i.e. England, Scotland and Wales, the fourth bit of the state must also be a country. Many states contain within their territory various autonomous or devolved regions, whose creation or existence does not automatically mean that every other part of the territory must fall into the same category or use the same term. I would much prefer to keep the intro as is. Brocach (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The current intro doesn't convey enough information. It's a "part", so what type of part? It's reasonable to briefly mention the options in the lead, so I also support Dmcq's proposal. Northern Arrow (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
A part is "an amount or section which, when combined with others, makes up the whole of something." That captures Northern Ireland's relationship with the United Kingdom quite well. It is also how Northern Ireland is described in the 1998 act: "...Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom...". That may be unsatisfying, but it is accurate and neutral. --RA (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The whole idea of what is and what isn't neutral is being distorted by this discussion. I'm not aware of a raging debate out there in the real world about this issue. Sure, there's a few editors here who object to "country" for whatever reason, but that seems to me to be what's called POV pushing. As for the argument above about "...Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom...", to extract the word "part" from that statement to justify its use as we have at the moment is stretching it a bit. Northern Arrow (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
So what's your idea of neutral then? --HighKing (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The idea that "country" is neutral, but "part" is not neutral, seems a little strange to me as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree about not relying on the above quoted legislation to back up the simple wording "part", as the word there is more of an assertion focused on the relationship between the UK & NI, rather than being a term specifically describing the nature/status of NI per se. It doesn't provide a definitive answer, were such a thing to exist anyway. I also think we don't need to obssess too much about finding perfectly neutral terminology - nothing is ever neutral when it comes to this issue; someone will always claim that word X overplays or underplays some aspect - but more on the preponderance of usage in serious sources, while avoiding anything too obviously controversial or outright "wrong". It's quite common to see NI described as a country, equally common to see it not so described (even when Scotland, Wales and England are by contrast - see first answer to today's Guardian citizenship quiz, for example, not that that proves too much either by itself). "Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, variously described as a region, province, country etc" might work, even if it is a little clunky and convoluted, especially for the first sentence in the lead. N-HH talk/edits 09:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(Half-jokingly...) Maybe we need a page on Northern Ireland description dispute, similar to British Isles naming dispute and Derry/Londonderry name dispute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to that! Maybe however we should start with the assumption that no single term is universally accepted, even "part" is controversial. THat is why I rather like the proposed compromise, it lists the terms used without selection or exclusion. ----Snowded TALK 11:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I've tried just sticking in something like, the worst that can happen is it just gets removed again but I'd hope people could instead try seeing first if they can tweak the business a bit or move it where they'd like instead. Dmcq (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for being bold and getting the ball rolling. I like it as it is, but as you say, let's just tweak away and see what we end up with. Better than this deadlock. JonC 13:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
To my eyes, it's a fudge to satisfy POV pushing. None the less, I've added further links.
The current phrasing could also be marked with [who?] and, like GHM, I'd voice also weighting concerns. These terms aren't equal, interchangeable or used in the same way. "Province" is the UK government, ISO and OED definition of 'what Northern Ireland is', for example. In contrast, whilst "country" is frequently used to describe the four parts of the UK — and England, Scotland and Wales specifically (including in ISO, etc.) — it is much less frequently used to describe Northern Ireland in isolation. And both Scotland and the Republic of Ireland are "regions" in the same terms as Northern Ireland depending on context (e.g. NUTS regions).
A foot note would be a better approach IMO; or a sentence or two later on in the paragraph about nomenclature and symbolism in Northern Ireland, of which this question is part. --RA (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to summarize the article so the main question should be is that a reasonable short summary of the section about that? We don't need footnotes and citations as that should be covered by the part of the article dealing with it and I think that is easily identifiable from the contents list. Dmcq (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
In fact I see you made a link from 'variously described' to the appropriate section, that's a good way of doing the business I think. Dmcq (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The wording and links look OK to me, but I feel it gives the issue too much weight to have it as the second sentence. How would people feel about moving it down, perhaps to the end of the first paragraph? I think it is important to establish such basic facts as the location, size and boundaries first, before noting the semantic issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering about that myself as perhaps a little more could then be said, however looking at it I just couldn't seem to fit it properly and really do we need to say more about this rather than something more interesting about the place. I always wonder about tourists when I look at these articles even if that isn't being exactly neutral :) Plus the guideline in MOS:LEADALT encourages one to put things like this up front at the very beginning. Dmcq (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That guidance surely relates specifically to alternative names though, not descriptions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
It still flows better where it is, and it is in the same position as "country" on the other UK articles which should help a reader moving between the articles. We are not elevating any one over the other, and to be honest if people want to change the sequence I will not be worried about it ----Snowded TALK 21:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "...is that a reasonable short summary of the section about that?" — To do so, I think it would need a note that all of these terms are problematic in one way or another and can their use can reveal one's political bias. I've added another half sentence on this, along with citations (see WP:LEADCITE).
  • "...I just couldn't seem to fit it properly..." — Same here. The issue doesn't deserve to be so high in the introduction but without adding a new section (like I suggested above) the second sentence is the best 'fit'. Since the sentence was added, however, it was joined to the first sentence. That's OTT and is just the sort of "POV creep" I suspect will happen if "country" is put back in. How long before we have, "Northern Ireland is a country, variously described as a province or region, that is part of the United Kingdom"?
  • "...MOS:LEADALT encourages one to..." — MOS:LEADALT doesn't apply ... unless someone is suggesting we add Six Counties, etc. to the lead :-P --RA (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
You additions this morning improved it. I think a few decades ago there would have been a case for six counties as well, but now that just needs to be in the main body somewhere. The point here is that there are official references for all three terms used. I don't think you are justified in calling it "POV creep" and the formulation you are worried about was one of your own earlier compromises. I would hope with having all three 'official' names that we might have a nice long period of stability on this issue. ----Snowded TALK 04:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. My point about not giving undue weight to the issue applies with even greater force after the latest changes. We are essentially saying that what is in essence a semantic debating point is one of the most fundamental items of encyclopaedic information to be given about the area. It isn't. The area's basic geography - where it is, how big it is, and so on - should be in the second sentence, not this wording. We should bear in mind that the opening sentence or two are what appears in popups, Facebook pages, Google searches, and so on. It is simply not important for this detailed clarification to be in those opening couple of sentences - there is no guidance that would give it that importance, and questions of consistency with other articles are simply irrelevant and should be given no weight. We are getting carried away with an issue that is simply not that important, except in debates between ourselves as editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Well we will have to agree to disagree, Names of things have always had huge importance in Northern Ireland, what you call things is a tribal marker. RA has come back to this again and again over the years which illustrates the point. We also have reliable sources which make the point that the name is controversial, so its not just editors opinions here. Northern Ireland is a political entity of recent construct, the creation of which was and remains controversial. That is as important as its basic geography etc. ----Snowded TALK 07:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact that editors here disagree over an issue, or that an issue is controversial, gives absolutely no indication whatsoever of that issue's importance in the real world. Any other encyclopaedia would state that "Place X is an area located here, with an area of Y and a population of Z. Its government is ....." etc. Whether that place is called a hamlet, village, city, etc., and the fact that there is disagreement over its description, is a side issue. The description is indeed controversial, but that does not make it very important. What is most important is to give the reader - the archetypal high school student in Indonesia, if you like - the most important information about the place at the start of article - not in giving priority to forms of words that happen to resolve differences between editors here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Its certainly not enough that editors disagree, but we have citations which show its controversial. The fact that out of the four "units" of the UK one has no agreed description, and the choice of description is controversial is notable. As I have said before, what things are 'called' is important on all Irish issues. ----Snowded TALK 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree - but not so much of an issue that it needs to be discussed in the opening two sentences of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I can live with the 'amongst other terms' as those are the official ones and the others are unofficial, however I really don't see thee need for 'although none of these is without problem'. That is simply duplicating and emphasising to no great purpose that I can see. If there was a single straightforward name without problems that would have been in the first sentence and anyway there is a link to the section about the problems and some citations have been added about it even though it is properly covered in the referenced section so they're not really necessary either. Personally I dislike citations in places like that as it makes it depend on the citation rather than being a summary of the relevant section but I can live with it as well too. Dmcq (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can agree to Dmcq's suggestion at the start of this discussion.

@Hackney:

How about "no". It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to describe it as a country when the term is disputed. Do you want to keep going round in circles and getting nowhere? 2 lines of K303 12:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Faux pas argument that'd mean we'd have no descriptions for many things on many articles. For example control of the Falkland Islands is disputed however is still stated as being British regardless. Also have you any reliable sources that says the term is actually disputed or is that simply personal opinion and original research? It's an abject failure of WP:NPOV to push a POV without corroborating evidence - evidence not from an Irish nationalist viewpoint at that.

@Snowded:

Maybe i'm splitting hairs but: Northern Ireland is a political entity of recent construct - it is not a recent construct. In world terms 90 years is not recent. The Republic of Ireland is a younger construct. Post-Yugoslavia and post-USSR states aren't treated as that recent anymore. Montenegro, Kosovo, and South Sudan can be called recent constructs. In fact just how many political entities have been come and gone since the creation of Northern Ireland. Definitely more than a few. It's like saying New York is a young city, which it ain't. Mabuska (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
More taking the wrong hairs to split  :-) The post USSR states are generally political entities of long standing. Ireland until the early part of the last century was one entity (or possibly four at times), so taking six counties from one province is a recent construct; no historical precedent. ----Snowded TALK 11:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The argument can be made that Northern Ireland didn't take 6 counties out of a previous construct, but the rest of Ireland left that previous construct and Northern Ireland remained where it was, with a different name. NI strictly didn't split from the rest of Ireland, the rest of Ireland split from the UK. Canterbury Tail talk 11:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
It can be argued, but if I remember aright it was agreed that Ireland could move back to a state of independence, then the six counties chose to split. But this makes the case for controversy! ----Snowded TALK 12:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Im still not convinced this wording on the article is right although it is at least better than before.

" Northern Ireland (Irish: Tuaisceart Éireann pronounced [ˈt̪ˠuəʃcəɾˠt̪ˠ ˈeːɾʲən̪ˠ] ( listen), Ulster Scots: Norlin Airlann orNorlin Airlan) is a part of the United Kingdom in the north-east of the island of Ireland. It is variously described as acountry, province or region, amongst other terms, although none of these is without problem." I believe "of the United Kingdom" should possibly be added after the list of country, province or region. Otherwise it could mislead people into thinking its "of Ireland" as the last thing that is mentioned in the previous sentence is the island. ANd i am still not happy with the "part of the UK" being used in that way linking to an article about administrative subdivisions. It should be "[part of] the [United Kingdom]] in the.." BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see an argument for moving the "of the UK", although not sure it makes a huge difference. I agree that the link currently there for "part of" is not the best option, and that constituent countries - despite the debate here - would be a better one. It does say on that page that the term country can apply to the four parts, not that it does or has to. Can I also follow others though and say that I'm not sure we need the "none of them is without problem" declaration? I think it sits oddly so early in the lead, and makes an already slightly long and clumsy construction (albeit perhaps necessarily) even more so. We're not surely trying to address or describe the debate about nomenclature here, just highlight that the place is sometimes called different things and aim to cover the main ones. As also noted somewhere above, although we've tied ourselves in knots over it here for the purposes of picking words to write an accurate encyclopedia entry, it's not actually AFAIK a major substantive dispute or issue in the real world that needs to be flagged up so prominently in that entry. N-HH talk/edits 11:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not a substantive issue in the real world. I think The Four Deuces captured it very well above when he/she wrote, "I do not see that there is any dispute about what NI should be called, just that there is no agreement."
Like others have said too, the new sentence puts a undue weight on the issue. However, if the sentence is to be added (and the issue flagged) it requires stating that none of these terms is without problem. That is how the question is dealt with in reliable sources. Otherwise, just leave the whole thing out. --RA (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I think with two votes to remove it the phrase should go. It just doesn't add anything in that context when there's the link to the section and the citations so I'll go and remove it. Adding 'of the United Kingdom', doesn't fit well with the 'amongst other terms' so I'm against for the moment unless someone can phrase it all better. Dmcq (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I too support the removal of that bit which did not sound quite right and was not needed seen as there is the link to the "variously described.." and it says amongst other terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the lot per concerns regarding WP:WEIGHT. It was the "although none of these is without problem" that was supported by cited reliable sources.
If consensus can be achieved on a wording then good and well, but only half-telling what sources say doesn't meet WP:NPOV. --RA (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with that move - thank you. There are certainly sources (in the article text) supporting a statement like "It is variously described as a country, province or region, amongst other terms...", and there may be also good sources for something like "...although none of these is without problem." But, if there is consensus in principle to reinstate those words or similar in the introduction - and I am not necessarily against that - they should be given due weight, by being placed no higher than the very end of the first paragraph, rather than in the first couple of sentences. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I think we need something stronger and more specific than "part", which is impossibly vague. Also, while there seemed to be consensus to remove the "none of these is without problem" phrase, there was broader support for nonetheless keeping the brief list of the main terms used to describe the place. Defining what something is is surely key in the first few lines of an encylopedia entry - and if one or two different terms are in play in the real world, isn't there a case for mentioning each of them at that point? Also, I don't see that there are sourcing issues here and still don't see this as being a grave NPOV issue. It's much simpler than that - what is this thing usually called and how can we explain that concisely, and simply without excessive explanation or analysis? N-HH talk/edits 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem, for me, is that any attempt to explain the (unarguably correct) term "part" in the opening sentence or two must inevitably give undue weight to the argument over what sort of "part" it is. For most WP articles, there is a single unambiguous term that accurately and uncontroversially describes what it is that we are talking about and which should be contained in the opening sentence. For NI, that does not apply. There are different terms, with different implications, used by different people with different POVs. But, what most readers of the opening sentence or two need to know is basic information like where it is, how big it is, and what sovereign state it falls within. If we try to explain what is meant by "part" - by different groups of people in different contexts - in the opening two sentences, we are giving that issue undue importance. The explanation (which is set out in full in the article text) should perhaps be summarised in the introduction, but certainly not in the opening few words of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto to GHM (and this is a point that was discussed a few sections above too).
"Defining what something is is surely key in the first few lines of an encylopedia entry..." Certainly, and the opening line does do that. It may sound "impossibly vague" but consideration must be given to the possibility that, despite our desires to the contrary, no definitive or genuinely neutral word may exist.
The closest thing to a definitve term for Northern Ireland IMO is "province". That is how the UK govt. defines it to the UN and, from that, the ISO definition. (In contrast, England, Scotland and Wales are defined as "country", Wales being formerly defined as "principality".)
However, per reliable sources, all of these terms are problematic. No less, Northern Ireland is "a part" of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely indisputable and enough to start us off. What kind of "part", you ask? Well, we have a whole article in which to spell that out. As has been said before, there are 10,755 words in the article. We are not obliged to illuminate our readers on every aspect of a complex topic in the first 17. --RA (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this argument is that so is, say, Brighton Pier. Everything in the UK is a part of it. It's our duty to say what kind of part. JonC 15:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We do. In the article. And, possibly, somewhere in the introductory paragraphs. But not in the opening few words. It's too complicated and contentious, and any additional wording on the matter conveys an impression of undue weight being given to the issue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always said on my occasional forays into this topic that there is no definitive or pristinely neutral single term to apply here - but both those points apply to "part" as much as they do to "province", "country" or whatever. That's why I was broadly/cautiously in favour of the brief list we had for short time - as were several other people, looking at the threads above - before commentary about "none being without problem" was added. That commentary was, in my view, when we really started getting into undue weight territory and needless meta-debate; but when that second addition was removed, the whole lot was subsequently wiped and we were taken back to square 1, seemingly on the basis that "if we're not having my addition, we're having none of it". The main problem with "part" is, as noted, its vagueness and the lack of information it imparts - sometimes that's the only solution in these cases, but if we can offer a bit more clarity and note common terminology in six or so words, ahead of any more detailed discussion in main text, I don't see the problem. It's not about trying to illuminate every aspect of the underlying dispute over NI. Also, simple "part" can hardly be said to be neutral - for many, it underplays the status of NI as a discrete entity and/or one of the four constituent elements that make up the UK. N-HH talk/edits 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree; this mod [1] is one we should stick with; I will likely revert to that later today or tomorrow. Listing a few additional terms does not give undue weight, especially since readers may have come here from Constituent country or any number of categories where NI is listed as a country, or any number of other places in wikipedia where NI is referred to as a country; a brief mention is not out of line and helps readers, but we don't need to underline the problems - this is covered well later. --KarlB (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
When the BBC or government or in fact anybody just refers to the region or province or country of the United Kingdom they don't start talking about it being problematic, they just refer to it in that way unless they are specifically dealing with that problem. We should just say what happens normally and leave the mention of problems to a section about them according to that due weight. That there is a problem only has weight within the context of a discussion about the descriptions, it doesn't have any particular weight in the context of Northern Ireland itself which is what the lead is about. If anything was put in about it in the lead it would have to be in a subsequent paragraph in the lead making going on about summarizing the section about the different names but the various descriptions themselves are what people use all the time and are top level material whatever about the problems associated with them. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
@N-HH, look it, if it can be done fairly with respect to reliable sources (and not rely on OR or SYN) then I'm OK with it. A specific problem, however, is that the reliable sources we have that address this question don't say, Northern Irleand can be called X, Y or Z. They say there are problems with calling Northern Ireland X, Y or Z. Hence, when the relevant part of the sentence was removed, it improperly represented the reliable sources we have.
Yes, being left calling Northern Ireland "a part" is unsatisfactory. (Funnily enough, several of the reliable sources also speak about being left with having to describe Northern Ireland in unsatisfactory terms because of this issue.) But, like GHM says, there is more to the article than the first sentence. Read on, and what kind of "part" Northern Ireland is will become clear.
Finally, that Northern Ireland is "a part of the United Kingdom" is indisputably supported by reliable sources. Find a reliable sources that says otherwise. Comparing that statement to use of terms such as "province", "country" or whatever, which reliable sources say are problematic, is complete wiki-twaddle. --RA (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Where did I ever argue that NI is not part of the UK, or that it is inaccurate to so describe it? I merely said the basic term has problems of its own, which it surely does, as many other people seem to agree. More generally, exercising a bit of judgment and deploying a reasoned argument is not wiki-twaddle. People don't have to find a precise source for every assertion they post on a talk page. Equally, saying "I have a source that says X" doesn't always prove or even illuminate anything, nor should it guarantee inclusion of content in article text, given that things such as relevance, context, due weight, and the fact that sources will diverge on subjective matters all come into play. My view and that of others is that simply and briefly noting the differing terminology (the fact that these terms are used is not controversial and does not need sourcing in the lead; and, if we do source it, we do not have to pick out everything the source we happen to choose might say in addition) with a bit more precision fairly early on is probably informative and helpful, and not undue weight so long as we don't dive into the fact there may be problems at some level with each of the alternatives. N-HH talk/edits 17:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
RA, all of the names are sourced, so is the fact that all names are controversial Its not OR or SYN, especially as it is the lede. You think it does not have enough weight, other editors disagree. Now please use the talk page ----Snowded TALK 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"Now please use the talk page..." Says, Snowded ... replying to me .. on the talk page. TBH I'd ceased commenting because I thought I had added enough text to the page already ... but since you've kindly asked for more :-P
Look, we do need to properly use sources. That means properly representing what sources say. In this case, we don't have sources that simply say that Northern Ireland can be called X, Y, or Z. What the sources we have say is that calling Northern Ireland X, Y or Z is a problematic. Neglecting to mention that part, or glossing over it, neglects the substantive point made by the sources. The sources don't say, Northern Ireland is variously called X, Y or Z. They say, no-one knows what to call Northern Ireland.
I'm fine with anything that fairly represents sources (i.e. is WP:NPOV) but there's a lot of minor OR happening in this discussion. I want to avoid that. --RA (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I was mainly referencing this RA. We have sources for all the names and this is the lede. Open to changing the "problematic" wording if you have something better sourced ----Snowded TALK 21:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We have sources for all sorts of facts, throughout the article. It does not mean that they all need to be set out in the introductory paragraphs, or, in particular, in the opening two or three lines. We are trying to balance the need for clarity with the need to give due weight (or more specifically, not give undue weight) to a matter of wording which is better and more clearly addressed in later sections. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to RA's attempt to wikilawyer  :-) We have a genuine disagreement here as to due weight. I respect your view, but I disagree ----Snowded TALK 21:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well a I said above I did actually wonder about placing it further down in the lead but I couldn't seem to make it fit reasonably elsewhere - it just naturally was associated with the 'part of the united Kingdom' text. It just looks strange to say that then nothing and then have a bit about descriptions in the lead later on and saying part of is just strange too. Where would you put it or would you just not have it in the lead? You seem to say that if we say what it is called then we need to describe the problems about those descriptions or put more in about it than having a link to the appropriate section and some citations, why do you think that? Why do you think the problems have weight in the context of a summary about Northern Ireland rather than a discussion about the names? Dmcq (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) My preference would be not to have it in the lead at all. I think we should assess opening sections of articles like this from the point of view of the reader who knows little about the subject matter. Once they read that it's part of the UK, and part of the island of Ireland, they want to move on to more substantive information about its geography, politics, and so on. Readers do not want to be sidetracked, in opening sentences, into esoteric debating points about wording. (I know they're not esoteric debating points to some editors here, but that's irrelevant - we are doing this to inform readers.) There's a full explanation of the terminology in the article for those who want it. In an academic document, such a side-issue could be addressed in a footnote, but I accept that's probably inappropriate here and contrary to policy. So, leave the explanation of what "part" might mean to different people out of the lead entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto with GHM, but if it's going to be in there then we need to state that it is a specific problem. I haven't seen a source that says that NI can be called X, Y and Z without stating that the question itself is a specific problem and that any choice is problematic. Indeed, if anything, it is the problem that is notable (not the possible answers). It is the problem is that the RS describe. --RA (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The places that show the names are all official descriptions don't say anything about problems. A more authoritative citation to government documents can be attached to each description if required and the citations at the end removed. Those citations at the end only establish the names and the problem, they don't establish weight whereas the official sites do establish weight. The problem does not have weight in this context. Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The sentence deals with the question what to describe NI as. Here is what the two references currently supporting the sentence say about that question:

"One problem must be adverted to in writing about Northern Ireland. This is the question of what name to give to the various geographical entities. These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences. ... some refer to Northern Ireland as a 'province'. That usage can arouse irritation particularly among nationalists, who claim the title 'province' should be properly reserved to the four historic provinces of Ireland-Ulster, Leinster, Munster, and Connacht. If I want to a label to apply to Northern Ireland I shall call it a 'region'. Unionists should find that title as acceptable as 'province': Northern Ireland appears as a region in the regional statistics of the United Kingdom published by the British government." — J. Whyte; G. FitzGerald (1991), Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford: Oxford University Press 

"One specific problem - in both general and particular senses - is to know what to call Northern Ireland itself: in the general sense, it is not a country, or a province, or a state - although some refer to it contemptuously as a statelet: the least controversial word appears to be jurisdiction, but this might change." — S. Dunn; H. Dawson (2000), An Alphabetical Listing of Word, Name and Place in Northern Ireland and the Living Language of Conflict, Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press 

Both refer explicitly to the "problem" in the context of what to describe NI as. Other sources may use one term or another without stating it is a problem, but the sentence deals with the question of what to describe NI as and the possible options. RS that deal with that question indicate that the choice problematic and we should (neutrally) state that. --RA (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The article does deal with the problem so there's no conflict with the advice in there to deal with the problem when writing about Northern Ireland. The question is what is the weight of saying there is a problem with the names. The citations saying there are problems can be removed and more authoritative citations for the names stuck in instead. Just because a reliable source about a subtopic says a problem in the subtopic is important does not make it important in the context of the topic. Importance is not inherited into a main topic. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence deals with the issue. The references describe the issue. Removing reliable sources that deal directly with an issue and replacing them with a synthesis of sources that avoids mention of a problem is no way to approach either an issue (any issue) or to deal with sources.
Alternatively, if you don't think this is an important issue after all, then we can simply remove the sentence. --RA (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The descriptions are widely used in official documents and elsewhere. The problem of the usage of the various descriptions is not important in that context. The summary is about Northern Ireland, it is not about the descriptions. Dmcq (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Guys we are talking about the lede here. Technically all the sources should be in the main body of the article and the lede then summarises. So this debate needs to move to getting the main body right. RA it would also help if you stopped posing either/or choices/ I don't buy the "if you don't do this, then you have to do this" form of argument here. ----Snowded TALK 09:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes the body should always be fixed before the lead. I think though the body is okay here but there is a bit of problem in that the various different descriptions are used by the government and it is just some confusion and annoyance, whereas in the article the subject is discussed under the signs and symbols section which is about conflict an trouble. The second paragraph in the lead is the main one dealing with that sort of stuff and this business doesn't make the cut as important enough for the lead under that heading. The reason for sticking it into the lead is as part of its designation, for instance see New Caledonia which is described as a special collectivity of France in the first sentence and special collectivity is not mentioned thereafter. By the way I'd support adding 'of the UK' to get 'as a country, province or region of the UK'. Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that addition ----Snowded TALK 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The question carries more significance than just, "various terms are used". It is a part of the issue of symbolism and nomenclature around Northern Ireland. The reason I keep harking to reliable sources is because those are the terms in which reliable sources crouch the choice of these terms.
It's not merely that there is no agreement or simply that "various terms are used", they say. But, "These names can be controversial, with the choice often revealing one's political preferences.", etc. That needs to be flagged. Not made a big deal of. But flagged.
On a pedantic point too, with regard to "of the United Kingdom", NI is also a "region" of the EU, and "province" has been used (by unionist commentators) to describe NI is being a "province" both of the UK and of Ireland. Adding extra words like this, while well intentioned, tries to further define what is meant by these terms - outside of reliable sources. I'd draw a parallel with the England, Scotland and Wales article here. We don't, for example, say that Wales is a country of the United Kingdom. We leave that question open - because it is open. --RA (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ulster is a province in the context of all Ireland, Northern Ireland isn't. It is only a province in the context of the UK. Actually Wales says it is a country that is part of the UK in the first sentence. There has been recent discussion on the talk page about that and whether to include principality. Why are you so keen on emphasising that some people prefer one over another when it is so unimportant in this context? It is not as though there is any big business about the different ways every time the BBC or a paper or the government uses one or the other. There's a link to the section about problems. There's your two citations about problems. There's no link with the first sentence about Northern Ireland saying there's trouble about that and people call it the six counties or the North or Ulster or the fourth green field or something like that, nor are there any citations. Dmcq (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've put in 'of the UK' as somebody else supported it as well but I wouldn't lose sleep if somebody else ups the sentiment against it and removes it again. Dmcq (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And I really don't see why you are so keen on removing it ;-) ! IMO, highlighting these terms, without indicating that they are problematic, is misleading. There are plenty of sources out there that discuss these terms (see the archives) and all make the point that these terms are problematic (and indeed that it is a specific problem with respect to Northern Ireland).
What substative argument is against mentioning that, except that you just don't like it mentioned there? Others don't like the whole sentence where it is - we also think it gives too great an emphasis to the issue - but we are willing to live with it because others think it is important.
About "province", an example of someone saying NI is a province of Ireland is Michael McGimpsey:

"... Northern Ireland is not a country, Northern Ireland is a province of Ireland and it is a province in the UK and I think that the notion of a national identity or group identity or racial identity or cultural identity here is a nonsense." - quoted in F. Cochrane (2001), Unionist politics and the politics of Unionism since the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Cork: Cork University Press 

Insisting that NI was a province of Ireland would be a tenuous POV to push, but adding "of the UK" is an unnecessary interference. That NI is a part of the United Kingdom on the island of Ireland is mentioned in the sentence immediately previous.
And about, Wales, etc. "... is a country that is part of the UK ..." is different from "... is a country of the UK ...". That is a minor difference in wording but is a meaningful one with respect to the subject of that article. --RA (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Essays in the citations

I've just reverted an addition to stick minor essays into the citations. We don't need multiple citations and essays in the citations especially when there is a section about something. If something is worth sticking in it should be in the article and it already is. Northern Ireland#descriptions is referred to in the lead together with a couple of citations and that section is where extra material should go rather than in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The "minor essays" formed part of the references. I have rationalised the references, now. You have broken the 1RR on this article, not for the first time. --RA (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Just go and report me then instead of wikilawyering if you want to cause trouble. Why can't you just try and develop the article in a straightforward way instead of looking for opportunities to shove in your point of view and score one by exploiting the policies? What justification have you got for what you did? Dmcq (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I've gone and reinstated the Chipmunkdavis edit and put in another way of avoiding the excessive bleed of the image into the next section. I think it was better moved up but if you are really desperate that I not fix obvious problems with edits but save up reverts so I can deal with what you stick in then so be it though I'll try and find ways round like this instead. Dmcq (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not hellbent on getting my edit in or anything. It was just a simple adjustment in line with WP:ACCESS, making mains etc. appear before images for viewers such as mobile devices. The clear looks worse than overflow in my opinion, but the root cause of this problem isn't the picture, but that the Culture section is two unsourced paragraphs. As for the minor essays, they seem relevant, but I agree with Dmcq that they're not essential and can easily be seen as making some sort of point. Perhaps we need an article Descriptions of Northern Ireland, summarising our section on this article, where those sorts of quotes could go. CMD (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
There's an article Alternative names for Northern Ireland though it doesn't deal with this in detail and they seemed to have mostly suppressed the use of 'country' there. I thought the other images were okay that spilt into the next section because the main part of the image was with the appropriate section. However that section was small and the image had quite a bit of text below so it had half the stuff beside the next section on my screen. If you want to quote access for changes please stick that into the comment. Personally I can't see the reason for that part of the guideline and it doesn't seem to be explained anywhere from my quick search of the archives but if you really think it looks better without the clear then go ahead and remove it. Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not criticising your revert at all, or anything like that. I think the reason for the Access guideline is that everything appears vertically stacked on mobile browsers. Looking at one at this very moment, it currently has the section header, with the links below that, and then a box for the picture and caption. If the picture is between the header and the main/seealsos, like in the current Irish (in languages) section, the main article appears below the image, where it is disconnected from the now out of sight header. I've removed the clear, which on my monitor is creating significant whitespace, hopefully it'll be an incentive to develop the Culture section.
Alternative names are slightly different to descriptions, although they could quite reasonably be discussed on the same page, perhaps expanding the current article from what Northern Ireland is called to what it actually is as well? (renaming it in the process something like "Name and description of Northern Ireland" I suppose.) CMD (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Id support a change like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I had a look at the article with Opera Mobile and the only difference I could see the order made was whether the main link was before or after the image which didn't sem to make much difference. I certainly think that alternative names article should cover descriptions, the Names of the Irish state cover the business about 'Republic of Ireland' though I must admit that's because I merged the Republic of Ireland (term) article into it :) No need having multiple articles on the business. Dmcq (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This might help in the introduction ...

NO FUN ALLOWED:
Archiving as WP:NOTFORUM but adding a "like" template. (Edit to like as well.) --RA (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The English are British and lots of people think the British are English but that annoys the Scottish and Welsh because although some think they're British and some think they aren't and some think they are but don't want to be, they all agree that they definitely are not English. The Irish mostly think they are Irish, apart from the ones who are Northern Irish. Some say that makes them British and Irish. But others disagree and say they should just be Irish and then some say they aren't British either but part of the United Kingdom. People from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland can all play cricket for England because they're British as can those from Ireland even though they aren't British. So can South Africans. The English play football for England unless they aren't that good when they might try to play for Ireland. Those from the Isle of Wight are English, from Anglesey are Welsh and the Orkneys are Scottish, but although that means they aren't from the island of Great Britain they're still British. The Channel Islanders depend on the crown which is what the Queen wears but they aren't in the UK and those from the Isle of Man are the same, apart from their cats. BBC News site --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing adding this as it is into the article? Or is an argument for an addition of some sort? Mabuska (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

👍 2 users like this.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NUTS in the lead.

Objections have been made to the inclusion of the following sentence in the lead: "Northern Ireland is one of twelve official regions of the United Kingdom at the first level of NUTS for statistical purposes.". I think that is is accurate, verifiable, notable and consistent with every other level 1 region of the Uk, all of which have the sentence in their respective leads. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. We must have some level of constancy, and unlike the issue of how NI is described, this seems fairly uncontroversial. per this [2] I now retract my support. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What you fail to mention is that it's only in the other articles because you added it to them yourself 2 days ago. Using your own edits, from the same time as your edits to this article, to support an argument that everything else has it is circular and quite bad form, not to mention it's hardly dealing in good faith. Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Consistency is a 'would be nice' thing on Wikipedia but not especially important. What is important is that the lead summarize the article and that stuff in it be useful introductory material about the topic. No justification is given above except consistency - and even that that is a very problematic reason in this case as Canterbury Tail points out. Dmcq (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Really doesn't belong in the lead of any of the related articles under discussion. Editing logic akin to 'painting by numbers'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Am I missing something here? Within the NUTS you will find Northern Ireland under the category "Country", of which England, (also a "Country"), given her larger population, is subdivided into nine "Regions", ("statistical regions of England"). Whereas England is divided into "regions", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not, and for statistical purposes remain whole countries which, when combined with England's nine "regions", form a total of twelve "Level 1 Subdivisions". The "region" category is applicable to those nine within the "country" of England and not to the remaining three Countries/NUTS Level 1 Subdivisions.
What on earth is the OP trying to do here other than to prove they have grossly misunderstood what it is they are referencing/refering? Frankly, "Northern Ireland is one of twelve subdivisions of the United Kingdom at the first level of Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics within the European Union." is meaningless drivel for most readers and brings absolutely nothing to the table.217.42.118.93 (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.118.93 (talk)
People don't always come to Wiki to find facts that they already know; sometimes they like to find new facts. Some parts of the lead do not lend themselves to repetition in the main body. Having stated that "County X is a metropolitan county", would you really need to explain what a metropolitan county was in the body? Isn't that what links are for? And yes, there is a large share of nationalism involved here. Bad enough that some should doubt that it is a country, but to be relegated to the level of region, well that realy takes the biscuit. No such sensibilities have arisen in those regions in England. Indeed, in the case of the Republic of Ireland, not only does it figure in the lead of level 1, but also in the lead of level 2 and 3 regions. Lastly, it is the way that the govt of the UK uses in making cases to the EU for special funds for disadvantaged areas. It has very real implications for the lives of people in those regions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As this same discussion is occurring in parallel on three different pages, I shall respond in just one place, Talk:Wales#NUTS in the lead. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be mentioned somewhere. Mabuska (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
NUTS areas are detailed in Local government in Northern Ireland and in Local government in the Republic of Ireland where that sort of stuff is entirely appropriate. There's also a category at the bottom. I'm not struck on its importance anywhere here but I wouldn't bother reverting if someone stuck it in, however it certainly should not be in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, do not see any need for that in any four of the UK nation articles introductions. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ulster Scots Names

Can someone who has access add Northren Ireland to the plethora of Ulster Scots names in the lede. The ref is http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/71784/DG31101719_1c_Ulster-Scot_3Mth.pdf 85.211.147.237 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The "plethora"? You mean the one with two slightly different spellings? Anyway, that is the first and only time I've seen Northern Ireland rendered as Northren Ireland in Ulster-Scots – DigitalUK seem to be using standard modern Scots rather than the Ulster variant. Are there any other Ulster-Scots sources in use that use Northren Ireland rather than Norlin Airlan(n)? Jon C. 08:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
"digitaluk"?! The heck? That's an interesting choice of sources...and I didn't even think they covered NI...and as Jon C pointed out, I think something else could be found too. --Τασουλα (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the (modern) Ulster variant of Scots just an over-enthusiastic use of creative spelling and made-up words? According to this, Scots in Ulster and Scotland is much the same thing. I've seen Norn Iron used too. 86.165.155.92 (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

The 2011 census shows some interesting results concerning identity:

   • 40% of usual residents had a British only national identity
   • 25% had Irish only national identity
   • 21% had Northern Irish only national identity
   • 48% of people included British as a national identity
   • 29% included Northern Irish as a national identity
   • 28 % included Irish as a national identity
   • 59% hold a UK passport
   • 21% hold an Ireland passport
   • 19% hold no passport

This recently released info is surprising and should it not be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.250.253 (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

With a reasonable citation it should definitely be in Demography of Northern Ireland. I'd prefer to have a reference to something that analysed the figures and said something about them first before saying anything in this article. You don't want to just plonk numbers in here. The Demographics section would be the place for such stuff. Dmcq (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Here, here, here, and here, for instance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The second reference there from the News Letter seems to have some analysis of national identity and the last from U.TV has a small bit so there might be something that can be said here. The guardian have a nice map of the identity data at [3], I'm not certain one can fit it into the narrative it could be used in the reference section or used directly in the demographics article. The Belfast Telegraph goes on quite a bit without being clear what they were referring to. None of those referenced used the passport figures in any analysis as far as I can see, only the first from the Guardian even mentioned them, it comes to no conclusions and does not say why the author thought the figures were interesting. There is a difference between reproducing a primary source and a secondary source commenting on things. Dmcq (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Key Ethnic Groups Left Out of the Article

The two largest ethnic groups in Northern Ireland, Irish Catholics and Ulster Scots are completely left out of the infobox "Ethnic Group" listing and are erroneously just referred to as merely "White". These are far from just being religions, they are two distinct ethnicities.

The former armed conflict was never merely about religion either, it was always far more of an ethnic conflict than a religious one, the national sovereignty issue was always in line with deep ethnic divisions as well. Even the peace is deeply ethnic in nature, few have given up their identities to make peace, instead Ulstermen are still Ulstermen and Catholics are still Catholics, it's just that most members of each ethnic group have agreed to get along. There has been no loss of ethnicity, but there has been a large gain in peace.184.183.173.20 (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell cares it's a flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.25.3.96 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is just a summary of the census figures, that's what the census say and we can't say better. I don't know exactly what the figures are for but for instance separating out Irish Travellers might be to see if councils are providing facilities sufficiently. The national identity figures rather than the ethnicity ones might be what you're looking for. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

.ie is assigned to the State named Ireland

I would like to try to put what appears to be a bit of a myth to bed. Some places in Wikipedia suggest that the “.ie” domain name is somehow assigned to the island of Ireland or to the UK and Ireland. Unsurprisingly, that is not in fact the position.

(1) “.ie” is a country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) – so it is a 2 letter domain established for a country (the Irish State) based on ISO 3166, the standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Similarly, Irish legislation describes the .ie domain name as the "global domain name system assigned to Ireland"; and

(2) registration of a “.ie” is governed by the laws of the Irish State (and no other State) – See section 31 of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 [4] as originally enacted. Amending legislation is also on the statute book but apparently has not been commenced yet.

It is therefore pretty plain that “.ie” is assigned to the State named Ireland (and not the island!). The fact that it is Ireland’s policy to permit registration of “.ie” by persons with a connection to Ireland and/or Northern Ireland does not change the fact that the “.ie” is the domain name of the Irish State. It is not somehow assigned to “the island of Ireland” or to the UK and Ireland.

I appreciate some Irish compatriots may feel excluded by the fact that the ".ie" is in not formally assigned to Northern Ireland. Alas, Wikipedia should be about facts, whether we like them or not.

I have amended the article to better reflect this. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

For completeness, I should add that all country domain names like .uk, .ie, .fr etc. have an agency handling them with whom IANA deals with. UCD is the agency handling the .ie domain name which is designated to represent Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
https://www.iedr.ie/registrations-policy/ clearly implies that .ie is for northern Ireland too. There is no country called Antarctica, yet somehow there is a .aq that is for all of Antarctica, not just the non-existent "State of Antarctica". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The iedr policy merely says that people and organisations in NI are included in the set of those 'permitted to submit registration requests' (whereas people in Great Britain, Russia, Antartica etc. are not). It is not making any big territorial claims. --Red King (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

How about "footnote4 = .ie is assigned to the Republic of Ireland but is used by some people and organizations resident in Northern Ireland who decline to use .uk for political reasons."? --Red King (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Deleted because is was based on a misunderstanding. For correct understanding, see #Show nothing. --Red King (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why have a "compromise" at all....I mean, the article should just report the facts. In the usual space where Wiki articles list ".uk" or whatever code is relevant ".ir" for Iran etc., ".ie" does not belong....and really, what more is there to say? No doubt there must be a few German people who live in Northern Ireland and have .de websites...Should that get reported too? Maybe in the .ie article you could report on the politics of use of ".ie" in NI (if there are sources around this). Well, that's what I think. Ultimately, as long as your edit is honest and not misleading, I don't feel very strongly about it. I just think it will look like another silly "Wiki-style" edit, the sort no objective, academic publication would ever include. That's my instinct on it, given before any specific wording is suggested. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
That may be what they meant but there is the business that the crowd who assigned all those is not a UN body but a straight civilian organisation. Hopefully the UN will never get their hands on it either. I don't think we can say the domain actually belongs to the Irish government rather than that it is currently being administered by them. The only thing one can really say unless someone can find something more definite is that University College Dublin is the sponsoring organisation for the .ie domain. Dmcq (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
From what I can gather, IANA is basically under the control of the U.S. Government in fact (have a read of the IANA article). Either way, I entirely agree with you that its not a UN body.
But that does not change the fact that IANA has assigned ".ie" to represent "Ireland" and here Ireland means the State (in line with ISO code).
I never actually said it "belongs" to Ireland. I said it was assigned to Ireland. In reality, I don't think there is much difference between the two. After all, the Internet is international.
If you want to see how IANA operates, you could check out their report on an application received from Taiwan - IANA Report - Delegation of the .台灣 and .台湾 (“Taiwan”) domains representing Taiwan, Province of China in Chinese to Taiwan Network Information Center - It's just an example of how IANA operate (I am sure there are many others). you can see how the report states (i) "The “TW” ISO 3166-1 code, from which this application’s eligibility derives, is designated for use to represent Taiwan, Province of China." - IANA would of course say the equivalent in respect of .ie; (ii) Note how they address the issue of "Public Interest", in particular how they say "The application is consistent with known applicable local laws in Taiwan, Province of China." - IANA would of course say the equivalent if an application was made in respect of .ie - That is to say, they recognise that what is done (or not done) with .ie is something that Irish law determines (no other country's).
IANA is quite an interesting topic....But the notion that country domain names are not assigned to countries is without a sound basis, when you start looking at the detail. If you don't agree with this - then your point really goes to all top level domain names assigned to countries...and you would need to make equivalent amends to all Wiki country articles. It would not be fair to give some special treatment to .ie (which is no different to .ir or .uk or .fr etc.).
Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
It does say there that the interests of the government of the country should be considered very highly which does associate it with a government. I think the real point though is that the domain is actually operated more in the mode of a domain like .cat and always has been. That does not make it 'cover' Northern Ireland but in effect it isn't actually the Irish governments either to any greater extent than one could say .com or .org was the Americans. Dmcq (talk) 09:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes as per WP:BRD, and also because this topic was discussed briefly very recently. Lets discuss first before making changes. I've personally no doubt that the .ie domain is assigned to the Irish state:
  • The Domain Name System Structure and Delegation document, RFC1591, states under "Country Codes" The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list. So that seems to clearly indicate that the country codes are for entities defined by ISO 3166.
  • The ISO standard for Country Codes - ISO 3166 says ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions. The purpose of ISO 3166 is to establish internationally recognised codes for the representation of names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, and their subdivisions. However, ISO 3166 does not establish the names of countries, only the codes that represent them. This is less clear since it seems it includes not only countries, but also "territories or areas of geographical interest". But
  • The decoding table for ISO 3166 simply states "ie - Ireland". Personally, I believe that the "country" is therefore the Irish state. But it's actually not 100% clear since we've also got "IM - ISLE OF MAN" and that's not a "country" per se. But I also believe this is splitting hairs. It's reasonable to assume the ".ie" domain is assigned to the Ireland (as in the Republic of Ireland).
But that isn't what the article states. It's not about what domain has been assigned to Norther Ireland - because in that case, there shouldn't be any domain listed since none has been assigned specifically for NI. The domain listing are simply listing the Top Level Domains (TLDs) that are relevant for Northern Ireland. The inclusion of ".ie" is because the designated manager responsible for the domain has deemed the entire island to be eligible, including NI. --HighKing (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi HighKing -
(1)Your fairly lengthy quotes on the ISO etc did not teach me anything I didn't already know or hadn't read already. The ISO code "IE" stands for Ireland proper (i.e. the Irish State). There is absolutely no doubt about this. Do you want to construct some argument that "IE" stands for the geographic island of Ireland. If you do, please adduce sources. In my opinion, such an agrument would be so silly, that I will assume here that you don't want to argue that the ISO code "IE" stands for an island.
(2)So .IE is the domain name assigned to represent the Irish State (not Northern Ireland) by IANA. But you want .IE to be represented in the Article as if .IE was equally relevant to Northern Ireland as .UK.
(3).UK is assigned to represent the UK not just Northern Ireland - obviously, that is correct. But you ignore that Northern Ireland is part of the UK (not Ireland) and so .UK is the domain name that covers Northern Ireland. ".IE" does not do so because Northern Ireland is not part of Ireland.
(3) I think your argument that ".ie" should be listed is devoid of proper reasoning/sources - it smacks to me of ignoring reality on the basis of politics. As others have already pointed out, the fact that Ireland allows (as a matter of policy) persons in NI to register .ie websites is irrelevant. Afterall, Tuvalu (as a matter of policy) also allows persons in NI to register .tv websites - Does that mean .tv should be listed too? Of course not!
(4) You have reverted my edit (which removed .ie) and inserted .ie back into the article. To my mind (given your lack of reasoning), that is vandalism (though I doubt you understand it as such). However, I don't want to get kicked off Wikipedia by reverting it. I don't expect you are going to change your mind as the position here is pretty plain (and has been since my first post). More voices will need to be heard and a consensus built. I will try to get a few more editors to get involved. Maybe a posting at .ie talk page, .uk talk page, the UK talk page, the Ireland talk page - any other ideas for where we could post this matter to get more editors involved ?
Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As to point (1) - I've quoted the relevant pieces - not to disagree with you in the slightest, but to provide all the information that backs up that ".ie" is assigned to the Irish state. And I say this several times. And I've certainly not tried to construct any arguments against this. For me, it's is reasonable clear and straight forward. As to your point (2), nobody has argued against ".uk", although your reasoning is flawed. It isn't because N.I. is part of the UK, but rather that the ".uk" domain registrar has published rules governing the registration of domains that request a ".uk" domain. Each domain registrar makes the rules governing their domain. These are the rules for the UK, and you can see that very few of these domains specify the geographic limits at all.
As to the rest of your argument (and BritishWatchers below), this is where we (perhaps) disagree. Both of you seem to maintain that the TLD ".ie" is somehow ringfenced by a political boundary that governs which areas it is relevant to, or applies to. That isn't the case at all, and you've produced no references to back up that claim (nor will you find one, because none exists). On the other hand, we know that the ".ie" domain applies to to the entire island because since it is actually up to each domain registrar to make the rules governing the administration of each individual domain, we can look up those rules. And the ".ie" registrar has published those rules, and included the entire island. --HighKing (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
You really should not suggest that experienced editors are vandals just because they disagree with you. In the context of NI, where citizens can choose between the Irish State the the UK its more than reasonable to included it. ----Snowded TALK 23:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that people in Northern Ireland can choose Irish citizenship is absolutely irrelevant. This article is about Northern Ireland. The republic of Irelands internet domain should not be included in such a misleading way as it is at present. Last time i checked Northern Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom, not a part of the Republic of Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
A major feature of the constitution is hardly irrelevant BW ----Snowded TALK 23:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is about a part of the sovereign state and country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not about somewhere in the Republic of Ireland, nor has it ever been in the Republic of Ireland. A republic of Ireland domain being presented on this article in the current way is misleading, factually inaccurate and blatantly POV. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
BW, whether you like it or not a sizeable portion of the population look to the Irish state not the UK for their identity. .ie is permitted for use in Northern Ireland so there really is no big deal here. ----Snowded TALK 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
No there is a big deal here, it is totally unacceptable for people to attempt to portray something that is clearly a Republic of Ireland domain as a Northern Ireland or United Kingdom domain. Someone in Northern Ireland can register many domain names, they do not appear in the infobox. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is quite unique within the UK in that its citizens can choose Irish citizenship as a birthright. Is it too much to point out that individuals and organisations also prefer to use the .ie address for their websites? Please! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree there seems to be a lack of "parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities" here. The .ie domain is not government owned, it is owned by the community. If there is to be a compromise might I suggest removing 'Internet TLD' altogether and just putting in ISO country code with no mention of the internet. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder if BW has a Union Jack painted on the wall of his house to match his wikipedia page. Our job here is not to make a political statement about either the defense or breakup of the Union, but to reflect common use in the real world. So I think it stays. ----Snowded TALK 06:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The registration policy of IEDR (the registry for .ie Internet Domain Names) shows applicants for the TLD .ie should be based in either the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. No compromise is necessary, as the .ie TLD is being shown correctly on this page. Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Northern Irish can also register a ".tv" domain should they so wish. Can we put that in the infobox, too, please? Jon C. 11:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I assume you accept the IEDR source shows that .ie explicitly includes those in Northern Ireland. .tv does not explicitly include those in Northern Ireland. You are, of course welcome to approach the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard if you doubt the IEDR source is sufficient, or if you wish to promote the case to include .tv. Daicaregos (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Allowing and encouraging people and organisations from Northern Ireland to register a .ie domain changes nothing. You have not showed reliable sources stating .ie is the official registered top country domain for Northern Ireland. Only .uk is as NI is part of the UK, it is not part of the Republic of Ireland. The Irish Parliament has legislated to be able to impose regulations regarding .ie domain names, does the UK government / NI government have those same powers over the domain? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Nor have you shown that ".uk" domain is the official registered domain for Northern Ireland. You probably meant to say "United Kingdom". And the Irish Government legislate for the ".ie" domain, I agree. Who legislates for the ".eu" domain? :-) Who legislates for the ".uk" domain? And since any entitity can register for a ".uk" domain and not operate in the UK, what's your point exactly? You're trying to turn this into a political debate, when what's it's really and actually about is whether the ".ie" domain is relevant to NI. --HighKing (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The UK domain is officially for the country called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which clearly includes NI, i have said yes it does not specifically only apply to Northern Ireland, but the only official domain that represents NI is .uk because it is part of the UK, that is the country.
In a glossary from report in 2010 by Irelands domain registry it says "ccTLD - A Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a top level domain used and reserved for a country or dependent territory. Examples of ccTLDs include .ie for Ireland, .uk for the United Kingdom, .de for Germany, .us for the United States of America, and .es for Spain. Each country appoints a manager for its ccTLD and sets the rules for allocating domains. IE Domain Registry Limited (IEDR) manages the .ie ccTLD." So what is the country it is talking about? The republic of Ireland is clearly the country referenced, it is not a domain name assigned "to an island". So the infobox should either state .uk because NI is part of the UK and .uk is the UKs official top country domain, or it should state neither, as there is nothing specifically for Northern Ireland. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
You're constantly trying to mix up several separate things. Nobody has once argued about what "country" the various domains are assigned to. Everyone agrees on that point. The country gets to "manage" the domain, it doesn't "own" it. Now address the point about how the various registrars set the geographic or political rules for the domains. Because that's how you really decide on whether a domain is relevant for a territory like Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
On the EU one, well i just took a quick look and the registry organisation was appointed by the European Commission, so they have an element of control and have passed regulations in the way national governments do over their own country domains, despite the registry organisations like in Irelands case not being government bodies etc. And of course all the EU member states have or are meant to have control over the EU commission and its organs. Im glad you agree the Irish republic legislates for the .ie domain, heres reference to that. For that reason it seems totally inappropriate to have another country's domain listed in the infobox of Northern Ireland. Either its the UKs own or none at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No, wrong again. It's nothing to do with legislation to decide what is relevant or not, it is to do with the rules set down by the registrar (and yes, slightly pedantic here esp. in the case of the .ie domain because the rules might reflect appropriate legislation). Hopefully if I repeat this enough it might finally get through.... the rules are set by the registrar, the rules are set by the registrar, the rules are set by the registrar. Nothing inherently political or geographical about the rules until the rules themselves define political or geographical limits. --HighKing (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Omit the section

People in Northern Ireland are permitted, indeed persuaded, to register under .ni (Nicaragua). Should we put .ni in the table? It seems eminently clear to me that it is irrelevant which ccTLDs are available to people in NI, but rather which ISO code (and thence IANA ccTLD) is assigned to Northern Ireland. But no such code exists. NI does NOT have and internet domain [nor does Scotland, Wales or Catalonia, though the IoM does). The section therefore MUST be omitted, it does not apply in this case. --Red King (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support the removal of the section entirely in the infobox as a compromise. It is certainly a more neutral and accurate way of handling the situation than the present method of stating a domain that belongs to a foreign country and sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As far as I am aware we work from sources and common use here, not political positions. Its notable that people in NI use both .uk and .ie the fact that they can use register others is just a red king herring, ----Snowded TALK 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, people in Northern Ireland can register many different domains, not just .ie. That is a domain for the country known as the republic of Ireland, NOT the United Kingdom or one part of this. The only political position that appears to be taking place is seeking to pretend that northern Ireland is somehow part of the republic of ireland and should have its domain listed. That is misleading, and unacceptable. .ie is not the domain for Northern Ireland, only .uk is as NI is part of the UK. As it is not specifically for Northern Ireland, there is the justified position of removing the listing all together which seems like a fair compromise. But it is factually inaccurate and blatantly biased for this article to pretend ie. is Northern Irelands domain. Provide sources stating that .ie is the top level country domain of Northern Ireland, i think you will find the sources and evidence show that .uk is. As the United Kingdom is a country, and Republic of Ireland (unfortunately and confusingly often just called Ireland) is a country. There is no 32 counties or "island" top level domain. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
"Unfortunately and confusingly"??? Probably too confusing for some simpletons to comprehend all right. Although there's also some fuckwits that understand it perfectly but try to make it into a big political shitstorm. --HighKing (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Lets have less of the personal attacks and name calling shall we? Keep it civil. Canterbury Tail talk 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Read it again - there's no personal attack in anything I've said (as you probably already know). I'll grant that it is "insulting" perhaps to some who hold a particular viewpoint, but only as insulting as someone insulting and entire countries citizens by saying "unfortunately and confusingly" about the countries actual real name. Or maybe you missed that bit? Or chose to ignore it cos you don't think it's at all insulting? Whatever... --HighKing (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh if only it was as simple as you seem to think HighKing. I think this whole matter demonstrates the problem perfectly. Lets look at the infobox note which says ".ie is assigned to Ireland of which Northern Ireland is a part" . Interesting claim, for which i would like to see reliable sources stating specifically that is the case. Allowing / encouraging folks from Northern Ireland to register a .ie domain is ENTIRELY different to where the .ie top level domain has been assigned. There was me thinking country code top-level domains were assigned to... wait for it! Countries? Provide evidence it went to an island in this case please. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
OK - good point about the text. That should be reworded, I agree. --HighKing (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, people in Northern Ireland can register lots of different domains. The same as how anyone can register for a ".co.uk" for example. But the infobox is there to list the domains that are relevant for the territory. Which is what has been done. Trying to politicize a TLD shows ignorance of the entire process, as it's up to each domain registrar to set the rules. And they're all different and there's no standards. As far as I'm concerned, the *only* reason that ".ie" is included is because the registrar of the ".ie" domain has explicitly stated it is *only* for entities in Ireland. And the ".eu" domain is similarly geographically limited to entities within the European Union. In a perverse way, one could argue that ".ie" is even more relevant than ".uk" since the ".uk" registrar does not place state the domain is actually *for* entities in the UK and for the most part, does not place geographic restrictions on entities that can use the domain. --HighKing (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
There comes a point where BW's Unionist POV seems to create an allergic reaction to common sense. He seems to be the corollary of some of my relatives who refuse to use any title other than "the six counties'. We have better things to do that provide a platform for extreme political opinions that try and flex reality to match their belief systems. Keep it as it is with .ie ----Snowded TALK 19:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The anti British bias on wikipedia is displayed on many fronts by many different people, i do not know the reason why .ie was put in the infobox for Northern Ireland, but it is clearly inappropriate for a foreign country's top country domain to be listed for part of the United Kingdom.
"The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list." - What is the country that the ISO "IE" is for? Is it for an island, or for a country officially described as the Republic of Ireland? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
BW delights as ever - "assume good faith", anyone? .ie is a domain name for "Ireland", assigned at a time when the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland defined the national territory as including the whole island. The statute to which BW points is an enabling measure under which the Minister "may" regulate use "within the state"; it does not limit use to "within the state" and certainly does not diminish the association of the .ie domain with the entire island. Leave as is, it's perfectly fine. Brocach (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I said i do not know why ie was included, that is assuming good faith and not making accusations about the reasons for its inclusion, although i admit it is difficult because it seems needlesly provocative to havea foreign country's top level country domain in its infobox.. There is plenty of evidence of the anti British bias on wikipedia, in numerous articles and methods of handling matters. Many editors may mean well and just be supporting positions they feel is right, it does not change the fact there are decisions that clearly seek to undermine British people and the United Kingdom on wikipedia in ways that no other country on the planet is subjected to, but will spare getting into a wider debate on that at this time. The statute i pointed to showed the Irish Republic can regulate for the .ie domain. Does the Northern Ireland/ UK government have a similar statute relating to .ie? Interesting reference to the Irish constitution, but its defunct claim to Northern Ireland is irrelevant to the ISO country codes, which on maps seem to show NI as part of the UK, not the Republic of Ireland. And does the .ie domain not come from those ISO country codes? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────BW if I had the energy I think I would raise an RfC on your persistent, never ending political arguments about the Union. Honestly you are OTT when you say that adding something common place and informative (.ie) is seeking to undermine the British people who are singled out for persecution. You are wasting everyone's time with these pointless diatribes. Its OK, nearly everyone involved thinks its OK. Leave it, get a life, find something more important. ----Snowded TALK 21:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

BW, you don't think it's a teeny bit "provocative" to refer to Ireland as "a foreign country" in relation to Northern Ireland? Or that linking the mention of .ie to "anti British bias" implied a lack of good faith on the part of other editors? As they say in these parts: catch yersel on. The .ie domain was assigned 24 years ago, I'm guessing ten years before you were born, at which time the only legal definition of an entity called "Ireland" was the Constitution defining the territory as the whole island. The Constitution has since been modified, but the version that is most relevant to a code assigned 24 years ago is the version that was in force at that time. The statute that you linked to shows only that the Government of the Republic in principle reserves the right (that in practice it devolves to UCD) to regulate .ie within the present jurisdiction of the Republic. There is nothing wrong with the infobox .ie reference and you could spend your time in better ways than combating supposed anti-British conspiracies that you read into a purely factual statement about how a two-letter code works. The box is accurate and it should stay. Brocach (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Well i was not trying to be provocative merely highlight that we are dealing with a situation here where there are two separate countries. The Republic of Ireland is a separate country to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Which means Northern Ireland is not part of the Republic of Ireland, so it is a "foreign country" or at least "foreign state". This is relevant to the debate because we are talking about a COUNTRY Top Level domain code, so it is clearly inappropriate to list another nations code as its own. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Snowded i never suggested that including .ie on the infobox here is seeking to undermine or persecute British people, that relates to other matters on wikipedia such as the clear crusade to wipe British nationality off of wikipedia, with people who are described in sources as British and consider themselves British not being allowed to be called British on wikipedia. It is absolutely the only nationality/citizenship in the world on wikipedia where there appears to be a presumption of NOT stating the persons legal nationality. The problem in this case of the infobox is not persecution, its purely misleading and factually inaccurate, and it seeks to imply that Northern Ireland is part of the Irish republic, when the irish Republics country code is listed as its own. .ie is not the top level country domain of Northern Ireland. So its only "informative" in the sense that its providing incorrect information. As for commonplace, ive not looked but i doubt we will find many articles where a different sovereign states top level country domain is listed. And we do not list the numerous domains available to people in Northern Ireland such as .org etc. BritishWatcher (talk)
Yes you did, you opined at great length on the subject or were those sentences just ones you cut and past into many a comment you make on these pages? Please try and address the issues raised, or drop it. ----Snowded TALK 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No the comment you seem to be referring to was about some other things on wikipedia, not this specific issue. This one comes down to factual inaccuracies, and presenting something in a misleading way as well as being clear POV. I have tried addressing the issues raised. This is a Top level country domain. WHAT country is it talking about? The Republic of Ireland.. So why is it appropriate to have the ROI country domain listed on a Northern Ireland page? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Should .ie be listed even though NI is not in Ireland?

Quotes and Responses

  • “The .ie domain is not government owned, it is owned by the community.” Per ISO, “IE” represents Ireland proper – not any other part of the world such as Nothern Ireland!
  • “Our job here is not to make a political statement about either the defense or breakup of the Union, but to reflect common use in the real world. So I think it stays.” – The real world is that Northern Ireland is part of the UK and so .uk covers Northern Ireland. .ie does not.
  • “.ie explicitly includes those in Northern Ireland. .tv does not explicitly include those in Northern Ireland.” This is not correct. Dot.TV is open to anyone anywhere in the world. Look it up. This is expressly provided for. Tuvalu expressly allows persons outside Tuvalu to register domains! If .ie gets listed, .tv equally deserves to be listed (as do many other domains).
Tuvalu may well allow persons outside Tuvalu to register domains (and that would be implicit, not explicit). So what? Please provide the link to .tv explicitly including (i.e. naming) Northern Ireland. Daicaregos (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That's silly...Why would Tuvalu start listing out every territory in the world ! Of course it doesn't. It expressly allows any one to register a dot.TV ! That includes NI ! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Silly? Absolutely. You claim my statement ".ie explicitly includes those in Northern Ireland. .tv does not explicitly include those in Northern Ireland." is not correct, but it is. If you don't understand words used in a sentence (in this case the difference between explicit and implicit), please consult a dictionary, before claiming that statement is wrong, which is quite insulting. Daicaregos (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
What on earth is your point ! Would it make any difference if Tuvalu listed every country and territory in the World! Of course not ! Dot.TV is just as open to Northern Ireland persons as Dot.IE !! Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
My point is that in (what I hope was) your ignorance, you claimed my statement was incorrect, effectively calling me a liar. My statement was entirely correct. What you should have done is to admit you were wrong and apologise, which would have been an end to it. And yes, it would make a difference if Tuvalu listed Northern Ireland explicitly. But it doesn't. Now please stop being a dick. Daicaregos (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • “Nor have you shown that ".uk" domain is the official registered domain for Northern Ireland.” Are you arguing that Northern Ireland is not part of the UK?
  • “what's it's really and actually about is whether the ".ie" domain is relevant to NI” No. That is not what it is about. There is a very substantial Albanian minority in FYR Macedonia. Does that mean .al should be listed in its country page? Of course not. Ditto, millions of Mexicans in the USA – should .mx get listed in USA page. Of course not ! It’s the same here guys.
  • “The section therefore MUST be omitted, it does not apply in this case.” That’s fine for me but with a Wiki hat on, the same should be applied to other territories like Scotland and Wales and England.
  • “I would support the removal of the section entirely in the infobox as a compromise. It is certainly a more neutral and accurate way of handling the situation than the present method of stating a domain that belongs to a foreign country and sovereign state.” I am ok with this suggestion but again think with a Wiki hat on, the same should be applied to other territories like Scotland and Wales and England. Otherwise you are singling out NI for special treatment for no good reason.
  • “Fuckwits” – Need I say more.
  • “allergic reaction to common sense.... extreme political opinion” This comes from someone who is trying to make an article read (in terms of domain names) as if NI is part of Ireland !!!
  • “Leave as is, it's perfectly fine” This was followed by a nonsense suggestion that .ie stands for an island which hardly warrants further response.
  • “There is plenty of evidence of the anti British bias on wikipedia, in numerous articles and methods of handling matters.” Britishwatcher – By coincidence, you and I think the same way on this issue. But as for anti-British bias....Wiki (like you) does not even respect the name of Ireland....So I don’t think you have much of a grievance here, relatively speaking !
  • [About Britishwatcher] “Honestly you are OTT”...Play the ball, not the man....All of Britishwatcher’s points on this discussion have been reasonable and absolutely fine. Discuss issues on their merits, not personalities please.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points, although i must just briefly mention that Republic of Ireland is the official description of the country as decided by the republics parliament, and it is used to disambiguate seen as the official name for the country is also a name of the island, which happened to have the name long before the state. So its hardly unreasonable for wikipedia to use that description (which the country also uses for football). Funnily enough this .IE issue goes back to the whole "two Irelands" issues really. Those arguing in favour of the status quo seem to think the domain was given to an island, when it is clearly a country code of "Ireland" (Republic of Ireland). BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No point getting side tracked on the Ireland issue...You know full well that the name of the state is Ireland under its own constitution and that's how it is referred to by its own Government and by the UK Government for that matter! You also know that there are lots of ways disambiguation can be handled (in the limited circumstances where it is needed). Wiki insistence of ROI this and ROI that is off-putting and politics based..Back to the ".ie" issue....This is a remarkable discussion. I think BW and I are in a minority here and this political steamroller is going to roll over us and ".ie" will be staying! It's a funny world BW. Maybe it will bring you closer to understanding how others feel about the whole ROI political steam roller - but I wont be holding my breath! Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed best to leave the ROI issues here, i do accept the country is officially called Ireland, i just think it makes matters more complicated. As people can say ".ie was assigned to Ireland" and make out like it was to the island, rather than to the country. Anyway I do not think that .ie will stay in the infobox, those arguing against the change have so far completely failed to provide justification for their position. The only reasoning provided so far is that the irish registry encourage people from Northern Ireland to take up domains too.. well considering they are selling a product/service, i can understand their motives. It does not change the fact a country domain is assigned to a country not an island. And no sources have been provided to show that is not the case. If there is not agreement to remove the .ie from the infobox i will certainly be adding the inline disputed tag to that section so that the debate can continue if necessary. We can also consider raising this matter on a wikiproject to get some uninvolved input from people, like a technology wikiproject for example to avoid potential politics. If people provide sources that clearly state .ie was assigned to the island of Ireland and that this is not a "country top level domain" based on the Republic of Irelands ISO code then i would see less of a problem. But so far no evidence to even try to back that up has been shown. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Lots and lots of specious examples that ignore the constitutional position that people in NI can choose Irish Citizenship. Neither of you are making new points, just repeating and extending what is a political position on a remarkably minor issue.----Snowded TALK 05:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Im sorry but people being entitled Irish citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. This is about if .ie is the internet domain of Northern Ireland. it isnt, its the top level country domain of the Republic of Ireland. NIs only official one is .uk, as it like Wales, Scotland and England are all part of one country known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which uses the country domain .uk, and also reserves .GB which is its ISO. IE is Republic of Irelands ISO code.. not the islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well the IE code is definitely the ISO code for The Republic, and from a governmental position the UK government controls Northern Ireland and they are subjects of the Queen whether or not they choose Irish citizenship. The North/South Ministerial Council and things like InterTradeIreland are I guess just parts of agreements that could be torn up as the governments decide. My point is you are seeing Northern Ireland as belonging to Westminster whereas it belongs to its own people and you are seeing a code which was handed out nearly a quarter of a century ago by some informal group in the US to University College Dublin as definitive about its use. There is a clash of viewpoints rather like Republicans versus Democrats in the US where there is very little recognition of or empathy with the views of the other side. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dmcq! I have no idea what things like North/South councils have to do with anything. But the notion that there is nothing"definitive about" the use of dot.IE is wrong. IANA provides that .ie is assigned to represent the Republic. No ifs, buts or whatevers...Do you disagree with that? Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I disagree completely with that. You're twisting the actual meanings and definitions to suit a political agenda where none exists. The .ie domain is assigned to the country (the Republic). The Irish Government has legislated for the domain. But, and here's the part you guys keep glossing over - the rules are set by the country registrar. And the rules for the ".ie" domain specifically include Northern Ireland. Now, on the other hand, if the country infobox is there to simply list the ISO country code, fine. But it's not - it's there to list the country domains that are relevant to Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Snowded! What on earth does Irish citizenship law have to do with domain names! What an imaginative idea! All jews around the world have the legal right (under Israel law) to migrate to and take up Israeli citizenship....Does that mean coutnries with large Jewish populations like USA should start getting ".il" listed in their country pages too? Of course not, and your "argument" (if you can call it that) is equally nonsensical ! Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
You're obviously unfamiliar with things like .cat then. Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dmcq ! If you have a reasoned argument to make, please do make it. Cryptic references to things like .cat don't really shed much light on anything (well, that's how I read it)
Hi High King ! Northern Ireland is not in Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in Tuvalu. Both Ireland and Tuvalu allow their domain names to be used by people in Northern Ireland. In that sense, both ".tv" and ".ie" are relevant to Northern Ireland. Please can you explain exactly why you think ".ie" should be listed but not ".tw" (as well as a host of other domain names). You are saying these is a big politica agenda here. Yes there is. It's this - Wiki should reflect basic facts like ".ie" is not assigned to cover Northern Ireland any more than ".tw" is! In a sense that is political. Nothing wrong with that. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
.cat is the internet domain for Catalan. It was linked to above. Did you get that or is there some other problem about what I was saying you didn't understand? You said that such a thing was nonsensical, I showed you it wasn't. Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You will need to explain how that in any way relates to why ".ie" should be listed as a domain name for Northern Ireland. I can't see your point (if you have one). Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia says ".cat is a sponsored top-level domain intended to be used to highlight the Catalan language and culture". It is not one for a particular region or subdivision of a country. Such a construct was not thought of when .ie was assigned but it is what .ie has been used for. As the Belfast Agreement says "the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights". Now that really is a political agreement as opposed to anything IANA does. Dmcq (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make the argument that .ie (per ISO 366-1) does not represent the Irish state...but rather represents something else (maybe the island of Ireland), come out and say so. If that is your argument, it is a nonsense argument that has already been disposed of (by reference to sources). Otherwise, what on earth is the relevance of your remarks here. Belfast Agreement no less this time around. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I have said IE in the ISO standard stands for the Republic, however IANA is not part of ISO or the UN or anything else like that. They assigned those codes to places like University College Dublin who used it as it is now used. As a first cut way of giving out domains it worked very well and people were able to do most things they wanted to with them though more are now being assigned. Yes the Dublin government would be able to start controlling it closely instead of leaving it alone just like Westminster could dissolve Stormont or anything else it wanted to practically but as it stands the .ie and .cat domains are similar in use. Dmcq (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is all very wordy to say so little. Yes - "IANA is not part of ISO or the UN or anything else" but it follows the ISO code and has assigned .ie for the Irish state. Period. Are you arguing .ie should appear on the Northern Ireland page? If so, on what basis and if yes, why not .tv and other similar domains? Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No consensus for change - close and move on

Clearly there's no consensus to remove the ".ie" domain from the country infobox. Unless any new points are raised, this discussion is tiresomely being pulled by the same-ol' same-ol' editors into political territory on an issue that is clearly non-political, and therefore this discussion should be closed.

There isn't any consensus to keep it in either. I think the simplest is simply to list the ISO codes as we shouldn't be sticking in stuff that isn't well cited and yet you have things like .tv which definitely are associated with television now even if it was assigned to Tuvalu. People are giving IANA a political or official status it never has had. Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The reasons to exclude it are based on made-up political reasons that have nothing to do with IANA or the management and administration of domains. We don't need a consensus to keep - otherwise the "Republic of Ireland" article would also have failed at that particular title. As for the ".tv" domain - some domains are geographically restricted, others are open. The ones that are open are not *specifically* relevant to NI, which is not the case for domain that are *specifically* restricted to include a territory. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If .ie is to be listed, why not others like .tw?

(1) Northern Ireland is not in Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in Tuvalu. Both Ireland and Tuvalu allow their domain names to be used by people in Northern Ireland. In that sense, both ".tv" and ".ie" are relevant to Northern Ireland. Please can you explain exactly why you think ".ie" should be listed but not ".tw" (as well as a host of other domain names).

(2) As for closing the discussion, that seems a tad hasty to me ! Britishwatcher/all others - any ideas where this discussion should be listed to try to get more editors involved and more perspectives ? I had suggested the .uk, UK, .ie, Ireland and perhaps IANA as wiki pages ? Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have listed the issue at the Wiki Project UK, Ireland talk pages and the .ie and .uk talk pages and the IANA talk page...This is a balanced selection of talk pages....but if others think this should be listed elsewhere, go ahead! Let's get more editors involved and together we should be able to resolve the issues in hand. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
.tw is for Taiwan, .tv is Tuvulu or television. And as to why exclude it then for the same reason as you exclude Italian recipe books when talking about books for doctors or plumbers. Dmcq (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Oops, of course ".tv". Correct. Dmcq - why would you include .ie but exclude .tv ? I don't think either should be included. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The reason to exclude "open" domains (or domains where the registrar has decided to not geographically restrict entities registering domains is because those domains have no rules *specifically* relevant to Northern Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is any ccTLD being listed?

I still say, and nobody has challenged the point, that Northern Ireland does not have its own ISO 3166 code or its own ccTLD so this section should not be shown. The whole issue is an artefact of using the 'country' template for a region. --Red King (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have no problem with it being removed....but then you would need to do the same for the Scotland, Wales and England pages. Otherwise, we would be engaging in inconsistent practices, and discriminating in the case of NI. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Endorse and agree. I can't quite see the point of including any ccTLD/country code unless one is assigned specifically to the region being discussed (as, for example, the proposed .scot may be come 2013). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
100% agree with an across the board change to each of the England, Wales, Scotland and NI pages. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Consistency is not any sort of strong requirement on Wikipedia. WP:Consistency did not gain any wide support. Pages are supposed to stand on their own so I wouldn't see that as any great objections. Dmcq (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree - unless there is good reason, we should be consistent. There is no good reason here. We should be applying the same objective standards. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
There is no problem with editors applying their own standards consistently. I was just pointing out that it isn't even a guideline in Wikipedia, I certainly agree though that it is preferable if things can be made consistent. Dmcq (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Andrew is, as usual, being sensible. There is definitely going to be an issue in the future, with .scot, and the current bother around .wales/.cymru (which seems to be going the usual awful way as DNS politics tends to) and with things like the proposal for city-based TLDs (.london, .berlin etc.). If there isn't an assigned ccTLD for the country, we shouldn't list one. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I can see there being loads of trouble like this over the proposed new Kurdish top level domains! If IANA was under the UN I could see things like Turkey and Iraq and Syria all fighting to stop anything like that. I'm surprised the Palestinians managed to get one for themselves. Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a consensus is emerging to delete the domain names from NI, England, Wales and Scotland. Any of you willing to go ahead and do it ? I don't want to be the one to do it in case persons could argue I was breaching some supposed rule. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think the Palestinians got one because thye have been represented in the UN (in some manner) for decades. They've similarly been on the ISO list for decades...Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Im prepared to support the removal of the Top Level Domains from this article as a compromise, but i do not think they need removing from all four nations of the UK articles. I also would also oppose inclusion of a domain like .scot onto the Scotland article infobox if the domain was granted. There is a big difference between the official top level domain for a country and one created for all cultural reasons relating to Scotland and Scottish people, not just Scotland itself now they have massively relaxed the rules regarding domains. If it was included, it would certainly be inappropriate not to include the official .uk which absolutely does apply to Scotland and all other parts of the United Kingdom. There is also the similar issue with regards the calling codes. There are other problems of course too, All of these things stem from the fact we are using country infoboxes for a very unique situation as these are countries of another country. Ideally there would be a specific infobox for the UKs four countries that actually reflected the situation properly and more clearly. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, England, Wales and Scotland should not show this field either, because (at least now), they don't qualify for ccTLDs, like NI they are just regions of the UK. Right now, .scot would be a 'Vanity' TLD like .google, .ibm, etc. If/when Scotland achieves independence, it will qualify for an ISO 3166 code and thence its own ccTLD.
Perhaps someone who cares about the consistency aspect would take it to the talk:UK discussion? --Red King (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd support something like this replacing the Internet TLD line
ISO code: GB-NIR
Note GB is the ISO 3166-2 code for the United Kingdom but UK has been reserved and is used as an internet TLD.
I think everything there is official and citable rather than trying to list internet TLDs as referring to Northern Ireland or implying or saying .ie does or does not applying to Northern Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Chipping in

Originally, .ie referred only to the Republic of Ireland. It was expanded to include Northern Ireland in 2002 after a consultation process. (cf. Information Technology Law: Professional Practice Guide, Law Society of Ireland, 2004). This new context for the domain is underlined by WIPO, which follows suit and resolves disputes over .ie domains name in the context of the "island of Ireland".

I can understand that this may be irksome to editors who may desire the Irish border to be less porous that it actually is. However, we are in the business of recording reality. Reality is that the .ie domain applies to Northern Ireland as much as it applies to the Republic of Ireland. (The note in the info box could do a better job of explaining the situation, though.) --RA (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the official sources explaining this is the case, because that is not explained in this article at all and the current wording in the infobox is clearly in need of correction. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling RA "chipped in" without bothering to read the foregoing detailed discussion....That ".ie" is open to people in Northern Ireland is not in doubt. So is ".tv" for that matter....But, I agree with BW...if you want to say something of substance, you will have to get into the detail and give sources etc. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I read the whole discussion. I didn't mention comparisons with .tv, etc. because it's silly. The geographic region covered by .ie domain is the island of Ireland, and explicitly includes both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I cited a publication of the Law Society of Ireland above as reference, which gives background to the policy change in 2002. Other have directed you to the IEDR website. --RA (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please provide a source that states the domain .ie is a top level domain that has been assigned to an island and not a country. We are aware of IEDR encouraging people from Northern Ireland to use the domain, they are selling a product, that makes no difference to this debate. We are talking about a Top level country domain... by the very term its about a country, not an island. A consultation and the Law Society of Ireland is not enough.. where is the official documentation from the global body (IANA) clearly stating that .ie is for the island since 2002? If such sources exist then i accept that radically changes this situation, but as of yet i see no evidence of that at all, nor is it made clear on articles here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
RA ha provided both a reference and a reason. This is now time wasting and for the record I don't see any 'emerging consensus' ----Snowded TALK 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
He has provided a reference to the fact the organisation that runs the Irish top level country domain changed its criteria on who can and cannot own a domain. The fact it allows people from Northern Ireland to register a domain does not mean it is Northern Ireland's top level country domain, and this has already been discussed before. The fact people based on the Northern Ireland connection could not even register prior to 2002 reinforces the fact this domain was given to a country, the Republic of Ireland. Different nations domains have differing criteria for who can and cant use their domains. .ie relaxing its rules does not mean it suddenly becomes a separate sovereign state (or a part of a states) top level country domain. We need sources showing that IANA has assigned this domain to an island not as a top level country domain. If it aint a top level country domain then it dont belong there anyway does it? BritishWatcher (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
All the law society source appears to say is.. "The ccTLD '.ie' used to be administered by a department within the UCD and is now run by IE Domaind Registry Ltd. In January 2002 it introduced a set of rule changes which relaxed the rules for obtaining a .ie registration, including the following: (a) generic names are now allowed; (b) domains of two characters are allowed (cannot be only two letters); (c) you must still have a real and substantial connection with Ireland, but now this is referable to the 32 counties, therefore Northern Ireland clients can now register .ie in addition to .co.uk which was not possible before; ". So it is not even about being based within Northern Ireland just having a connection to it, well im sure there are many in Canada or the USA who can successfully claim they have a significant connection with a part of the republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland.. it does not make .ie a country code top level domain for the United States or for Canada. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly its a minor and interesting piece of information not a major political statement. Please stop making mountains out of imaginary mole hills ----Snowded TALK 04:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Well the terribly worded footnote does not help, because that does in fact make a statement that a country code has been assigned to the entire island. That is simply not true, so far all the sources mentioned above would only justify saying people from NI or with a connection to NI are since 2002 able to apply to use the .ie domain. But we have not seen anything to justify saying .ie is the country code top level domain for Northern Ireland.
" Country-code Top-level Domain specific-information
Country-code Top-level Domains (ccTLDs) are two-letter top-level domains especially designated for a particular country or autonomous territory to use to service their community.
Establishment of new ccTLDs
IANA follows the ISO 3166-1 standard to determine which countries are eligible for country-code top-level domains, as published by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. If the proposed new ccTLD does not reflect a country currently listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, please read IANA's Procedures for Establishing ccTLDsfor more information.
Countries listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard are eligible for their "alpha-2" code represented in that standard. Certain countries may also be eligible for non-Latin IDN country-code top-level domains through the ICANN IDN Fast Track process."[5]
Simple question... does the ISO 3166-1 code "IE" apply to the Republic of Ireland, or the island of Ireland? Where is the documentation from IANA that it assigned the IE code to the island, rather than following their standard procedure of assigning it to a country based on the ISO codes? BritishWatcher (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


From the ISO website [6] ...

"ISO 3166 is the International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions. The purpose of ISO 3166 is to establish internationally recognised codes for the representation of names of countries, territories or areas of geographical interest, and their subdivisions. However, ISO 3166 does not establish the names of countries, only the codes that represent them."

Interestingly it makes clear reference to the fact their codes are used to assign internet names..

"The country codes found in ISO 3166-1 are used by many organizations, businesses and governments. For example all national postal organizations throughout the world exchange international mail in containers bearing its country code for identification. In machine readable passports, the codes from ISO 3166-1 are used to determine the nationality of the user. In addition, internet domain name systems use the codes to define top level domain names such as 'fr' for France, 'au' for Australia and 'br' for Brazil."

The ISO 3166 code IE clearly is for the country Republic of Ireland, not an island. And the domain name has clearly been assigned based on the ISO code. Would anyone here seriously try to argue that the northern ireland infobox should like the ROI one state the ISO code IE? If no.. then how can there be a justification for stating .IE? Also i do note that the ROI page only puts the .eu domain in a footnote rather than in the full box. leaving aside the whole issue of .ie a second, that is probably the better approach if .eu needs to be stated anywhere, rather than inline with .uk BritishWatcher (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that BritishWatcher and I are on a loosing battle here. Most editors are choosing to ignore the very basic facts stated so clearly. One editor even said it was "silly" to compare ".ie" to ".tv"....and gave no proper reason (people in NI are just as able to register a ".tv" as a ".ie", and neither domain name is assigned to represent that part of the world that NI is in - Tuvalu expressly allows registration to any one in the World incuding NI; just as Irealnd expressly allows registrations to persons on the island of Ireland, including NI).
BritishWatcher, I think this is 100% politics, just as your insistence on "Republic of Ireland" is politics. We even have ridiculous situations like "Foreign relations of the Republic of Ireland" (as if an island ever has a foreign policy....). Things like this (and ".ie" on the NI page) distort reality. BritishWatcher - Sometimes, you reep what you sow. Enjoy it. ".ie", it appears will, ridiculous and all as the reasons (if you could call them reasons) are...be staying !!!
I've already received one or two personalised messages here and I think if I continue with this disucssion, I will get kicked off Wikipedia. All it will take is for some one to make up some spurious ground to do so. If it happens, no one else will bother to read the reason. So, I will try to step back from this discussion now and leave BritishWatcher to do the running....I wish you luck, even if I don't really like your approach to editing on the whole. Too much politics. I like politics but I like objectivity on a website like this even more. This discussion illustrates how low Wiki rates. Regrettably. Happy New Year every one !! Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
You have done nothing wrong so do not think you will get kicked off, you have raised a legitimate issue and just because a number of editors are digging their heels in does not mean a discussion on this matter cannot and will not continue. I will raise this matter on a wikiproject such as the technology one tomorrow to ask if anyone there has views on if the top level country domain IE was assigned for the country, or if it was to the island. And if necessary we can start a request for comment on this matter. Unless there is a significant bit of information that neither side has mentioned on here yet.. ive not seen any reliable source that justifies what is stated in the article. I have no intention of sitting back an ignoring such blatantly factually inaccurate and misleading information remaining in this article. Happy new year too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Compromise - Discriminate against Northern Ireland

I've already stated I don't like this so called "compromise" (listing .uk for the other UK articles but not NI). However, I get tired of being a minority soif British Watcher is ok with it and others want to take that route...it's better than what exists presently. Agreed, the other UK articles should have this issue raised too. I will raise it on each of the other UK articles and see where discussion goes. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just leave them all as they are and stop wasting time on this nonsene? FAD you don't have an emerging consensus. ----Snowded TALK 04:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is no "emerging consensus" - the amount of energy and number of words expended on this crusade by, in essence, two editors does not outweigh the views in favour of retention. IANA does not assign codes either to islands or to states, but to entities such as, in the case of .ie, UCD and then IE Domain Registry Ltd. The registrar is entitled to make its own rules and in this case IEDR Ltd has clearly made .ie equally available to Northern customers.
As for the attempts by BW to bring in ISO codes as ifd they settled the matter, the ISO does not assign internet domains and the fact that it assigns IE to the Republic does not prevent anyone else from using the same two letters in the same order for a different purpose, i.e. domain registration (see what I did there?) Brocach (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. The IEDR is the entity responsible for .ie. Since 2002, they say it applies to the entire island. That's verifable through secondary sources. The appropriate venue to express dissatisfaction with that is an angrily worded letter to a public representative. --RA (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(1) I think there appeared to be an emerging consensus but it looks like there is no consensus again.
(2) People who are arguing that ".ie" should remain as is appear not to be addressing some basic questions: (x) Northern Ireland is not in Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in Tuvalu. Both Ireland and Tuvalu allow their domain names to be used by people in Northern Ireland. In that sense, both ".tv" and ".ie" are relevant to Northern Ireland. Please can you explain exactly why you think ".ie" should be listed but not ".tw" (as well as a host of other domain names).
(3) This is a discussion. There wont be any change to the article except if it is permissible under Wiki rules. There is nothing wrong with having a discussion. To those who would, please don't make personalised attacks.
Thanks ! and Happy New Year ! Frenchmalawi (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
As to point (2), I've answered this at least 3 times already. There's a difference between an "open" domain such as ".tv" that doesn't geographically limit registration, and the ".ie" domain which specifically does. So you could argue to include all "open" domains I suppose, but the counter-argument is that those domains do not specifically include or exclude an territory, and are therefore not specifically relevant to Northern Ireland. The ".ie" domain is therefore different in that it is geographically inclusive (and exclusive) and includes NI, therefore it is specifically relevant to NI. In a way, it's actually more relevant than ".uk" since ".uk" is also an "open" domain for most entities (some small exceptions). --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So am I right in thinking that according to one of the points of view advanced above that the .ie domain is an international domain available to residents and organisations of two countries (RoI and UK), unlike nearly all other domains? The Roman Candle (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but you're nearly correct. The .ie domain is a ccTLD available only to entities within the island of Ireland. So that's RoI and NI (excluding most of the UK). It is geographically limited, unlike other domains such as .tv and .com (and even .uk). --HighKing (talk) 20:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not quite. The .ie domain is not available to residents and organisation in all of the UK, only Northern Ireland.
Since this appears to be surprising, here's two refs:
  • "Domain chaos spikes e-business ambitions". Silicon Republic. 17 December 2002. Retrieved 30 December 2012. 
  • Information Technology Law: Professional Practice Guide, Dublin: Law Society of Ireland, 2004, p. 23 
--RA (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Well the facts are as follows, but facts don't seem to count for much when it comes to many NI/RoI issues, regrettably; but here goes. The .ie domain is de facto RoI. Management of it has been delegated to IEDRL by UCD and an important point is that IEDRL is a company (non profit) registered in the Republic of Ireland. They and UCD have decided to make the domain available to people and organisations in NI; fine they are entitled to do so (compare with .tv but in a much narrower sense). However, .uk (.gb is not now available) is the domain of NI and .ie is very much an addon for want of a better word. Come on! This can be explained in a note in the info box. It is an important point that it's available in NI, but please let's get away from the misleading suggestion that .ie carries equal weight with .uk. It is, after all, as some have said above, a domain administered by a "foreign country", although I wouldn't have used those two words myself. The Roman Candle (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
To a large part, the answer to that question depends on whether one believes Northern Ireland's position in the UK is of more significance than NI relationship with the rest of Ireland. That's question is complex and goes to the heart of communal divisions in NI. For this reason, both .uk and .ie are frequently eschewed in Northern Ireland. (Compare, for example, dup.org.uk, sdlp.ie and allianceparty.org.)
I wrote above that the note in the infobox at present is in need of improvement. How about something like:
  • .uk is the the top-level domain of the United Kingdom (of which Northern Ireland is part). .ie is open to registrants from across the island of Ireland. .eu is available for organisations in and residents of EU member states (of which the United Kingdom is part).
--RA (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. However, the TLD (or top level country domain, if you like) should only have .uk for Northern Ireland. .ie definitely isn't a TLD for N.Ireland, and neither is .eu. I'd just have .uk, with your suggested footnote on the next level of the info box to mention the use of .ie and .eu. I've just been looking at many equivalent info boxes for countries and territories and this seems to be how it's done. HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! The Roman Candle (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
.uk isn't the TLD for Northern Ireland. It's the TLD for the UK. There are, however, three geographical TLDs that are applicable to Northern Ireland: .uk, .ie and .eu. --RA (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I was going to crack open the champagne (the fireworks are already going off!) but I'll come back just once more this evening to answer that point. .uk is the TLD for Northern Ireland, as it is for all other parts of the UK (see the other articles; Scotland, Wales, England). I'm thinking you're trying to use semantics to make a point here. One thing's for sure, .ie is not the (or a) TLD for Northern Ireland (nor is .eu, .tv or anything else). Yes, another TLD, specifically .ie, is available to NI, but it is not THE TLD of Northern Ireland and shouldn't be listed on that line in the info box. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"The .ie domain is not available to residents and organisation in all of the UK, only Northern Ireland." - Is that the case though? The IEDR website says "IMPORTANT NOTE: All applicants applying for a .ie domain name who are not situated in the 32 counties of Ireland, must demonstrate a Real and Substantive Connection with Ireland." So for example someone in the middle of England or in the middle of Antarctica could apply for a .ie domain if they are able to demonstrate some connection with part of the island, perhaps a website for a tour of one of Irelands counties or about the history of one of the counties. The clear point being, this domain is not just for NI / Republic of Ireland residents. This is a top level country domain. The island is not a country, it is very clear from the actual website of IANA as well as the ISO which IANA use to determine the code... that .IE was assigned to the Republic of Ireland. .UK is the only official top level country domain in Northern Ireland, because NI is part of the UK which has a top level country domain. Besides from putting .ie in line with .UK which is totally misleading, the biggest concern i have is the footnote wording. ".ie is assigned to Ireland of which Northern Ireland is a part"," , that is a flat out lie. It was not assigned to the island, it was assigned to the Republic of Ireland but anyone may use it if they can demonstrate a connection to any part of the island. That is two entirely different things. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing this?

Northern Ireland does not have an internet domain so the field should not be shown. Not .ie, not .uk, not .ni, not .tv or anything else. Not shown. This field is only used for locations that have an ISO 3166 code. For example, the UK, Ireland (state), The Isle of Man (not part of tge UK), Guernsey (ditto), Tuvalu etc. Conversely, England, Wales, Scotland, Norn Iron, Catalunya, Sicily etc do not have their own internet domains and we should not display one. Not the one of the state of which it is a part, not one of any other state. The field does not apply to parts of a state. Leave it out! --Red King (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Again: ISO codes are not the same as internet domains. Internet domains are supplied via organisations such as IEDR Ltd which specifically states that .ie is applicable to Northern Ireland. Leave the text, it is correct, move on. Brocach (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The reality of the web on the island of Ireland is more complex than a simple .uk or .ie question. On Irish web hosters, the number of .co.uk domains hosted is higher than the number of hosted .net domains. The web hosting market is actually quite integrated in that hosters in Northern Ireland will have clients in ROI and vice versa. Some of the ISPs (U.TV and BT) operate on both sides of the border. The .eu ccTLD does not seem to be quite as popular as .uk either in NI or ROI. The most popular TLDs in NI are .uk, .com and .ie. Jmccormac (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
.ie is applicable to County Cork and County Down as well, but we don't put the internet domains on those, despite that being correct as well. Red King is right that the field should not apply for areas that aren't given their own codes. CMD (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Neither County Cork nor County Down are explicitly included on IEDR's .ie registrations policy, Northern Ireland is. Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's discussed due to the legal differences between it and the Republic of Ireland. On the other hand, the very first sentence of that page associates the domain with "the 32 counties of Ireland", so it would appear the counties are very relevant. CMD (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's associated with the 32 counties by the company that sells it (a company registered in the Republic of Ireland). This issue obviously isn't going to be resolved due to the usual "Irish problem". Therefore I suggest that Red King has the right idea. The domain info should be removed from all of the UK country info boxes (Eng, Wal, Sco and NI) because strictly speaking none of these are countries as far as a TL(C)D is concerned. So .uk goes on United Kingdom and .ie goes on Republic of Ireland, then leave it at that. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the reasons you may assume, IEDR's .ie registrations policy explicitly mentions Northern Ireland. Whereas, it does not note County Cork, or County Down, nor any other individual counties. So the analogy is irrelevant. Daicaregos (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not assuming, it's blatantly obvious in the link you gave. The ccTLD can be used by those in Northern Ireland, and it can be used by those in Cork. It's a relevant analogy, and this argument to keep the .ie ccTLD (and no-one's provided any evidence it even applies to the others) does not change that. The only reason the ccTLD's are included in this page (and the other UK countries) is that there was an infobox field for it, and so there was a desire to fill this field. CMD (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The page does not say that Northern Ireland is discussed due to the legal differences between it and the Republic of Ireland, so you must be assuming it is the reason. Of course the .ie domain can be used in any of the counties of Ireland, but IEDR's .ie registrations policy explicitly mentions Northern Ireland. It does not explicitly mention County Cork. Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim that the “only reason the ccTLD's are included in this page (and the other UK countries) is that there was an infobox field for it”, or is that another assumption? Daicaregos (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It's an instruction page, detailing registration policy, and the different proofs/information needed from the RoI and from NI. Instructions are the raison d'être for the page, and it does not need to explicitly say "Northern Ireland is discussed in order to inform you how to register in Northern Ireland, which is different from the Republic of Ireland" for this to be true. CMD (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Folk who are bothered about the geographic span of .ie should take it up there. As far as this article is concerned, NI is not a sovereign state so the ccTLD/ISO3166 field should be empty. Ditto England, Scotland, Wales, Catalunya, Bavaria etc. --Red King (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What ieDR actually say

https://www.iedr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Domain-Name-Industry-Report-2010-published-26-November-2010.pdf page 20 has a map. .ie is map to Ireland which you can see the border on. "The IEDR is an independent not-for-profit organisation that manages the .ie country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) namespace in the public interest of the Irish and global Internet communities.The IE Domain Registry Limited is not a governing or regulatory body, but provides a public service for the .ie namespace on behalf of the Internet community, and is defined as a public company under the Irish Companies Acts", these acts are inabled by the Irish government not anyone else, if the minister for comunication was to change the specifics within these acts removing the use for NI and other bodies outside the state -"applicants applying for a .ie domain name who are not situated in the 32 counties of Ireland", and "If the company is incorporated outside of Ireland, specifically UK or US, the company number must be included in the application. All applicants from any other country must submit a copy of the company’s certificate of incorporation". Note UK, not GB. The only mention of NI on the pdf "especially with the UK as some Northern Irish hosters operating in the Irish market would be hosted on what are nominally UK IP addresses". Maybe I missed some thing. Murry1975 (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are missing something. There are two references above specifically stating that IEDR operate the .ie domain on an all-island basis.
Reference to the Irish Companies Acts merely explains how the IEDR is incorporated as a legal entity. It doesn't relate to the provision of internet services. This is the danger of original research. --RA (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The refs in full also show its usage based on doing trade. The map they supply clearly indicates .ie belongs to the state, who regulate its usage.http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/act/pub/0022/index.html. Part 4 Registration of Domain Names;
"In this Part, ‘ “.ie” domain name’ means the top level of the global domain name system assigned to Ireland according to the two-letter code in the International Standard ISO 3166-1 (Codes for Representation of Names of Countries and their Subdivision) of the International Organisation for Standardisation."
"A person shall not use an ‘.ie’ domain name unless the name is registered in accordance with regulations made under this section"
These show that state regulates the usage of .ie and control who use it. If they choose to let NI use it and businesses or persons with trade links its entirely up to them.
Saying that its a NI domain would indicate regulation and usage either from London or Belfast, niether of which in the past few days I have been able to find. Murry1975 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Your analysis is absolutely right, but I fear it will make no difference here. Do you agree that the Internet domain section should be removed from the info boxes of all constituent countries of the UK? The Roman Candle (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, delete it. It does not matter a jot who tries to sell domain registration in NI, whether .ie, .ni, .tv or anyone else. The field is for 'domain delegated to this sovereign state to control'. NI is not a sovereign state so the field should not be used. --Red King (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
No don't delete it, its not a soverign state issue----Snowded TALK 21:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
There are two possibilities that could be regarded as correct (the present arrangement is not correct). Either delete these items from the four country info boxes or delete the extraneous stuff from the NI info box leaving just .uk. The Roman Candle (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Leave .uk. Murry1975 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Leave as is. .ie is as much the domain for Northern Ireland as .uk is. And as for domains being "delegated to sovereign states to control", the .ie domain is delegated to a company which chooses to apply it to both Irish jurisdictions. Brocach (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The facts, as verifiable by secondary sources, are that Northern Ireland is a part of the UK located in the north-east of the island of Ireland. Two ccTLD are immediately applicable (in alphabetical order): (a) .ie, which is administered by IEDR and allocated on an Ireland-wide basis and (b) .uk, which is administered by Nominet UK and allocated on a UK-wide basis. Northern Ireland itself does not have a ccTLD of its own.
The question is what does these ccTLD boxes refer to?
  1. If it refers to a ccTLD referring specifically to Northern Ireland then it should be left blank.
  2. If it refers to ccTLD(s) allocated to residents and organisations in Northern Ireland in common with some wider geographic reference then it should contain both .uk and .ie.
That's only being neutral. However, if option #1 is pursued then it should also be the case for England, Scotland and Wales. That's only being neutral too.
Therefore, leave as is (with improvements to the note) unless there is consensus to remove these ccTLD entries from England, Scotland and Wales as well. --RA (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope there's an emerging consensus to remove the TLD section from all the info boxes mentioned. It's not my preferred option but it's a compromise. As for the comment above about .ie. being as much a domain for Northern Ireland as .uk is - that's a personal opinion which is factually wrong. The Roman Candle (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not part of that alleged consensus. To remove .ie from this infobox means that only one infobox - that for the Republic of Ireland - would list .ie as the applicable domain. This would suggest that .ie is only available within that jurisdiction, which as we know is not the case. It is available to anyone in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the Republic. In England, Scotland and Wales, .uk is the only applicable domain (apart from .eu, mentioned only in the Wales and Scotland boxes). Both domains that apply to Northern Ireland should be listed, although the footnote could be reworded; e.g. "The UK internet registry, Nominet UK, and the Irish registry, IE Domain Registry Ltd, allocate .uk and .ie domains respectively in Northern Ireland." I would lose the ISO and .eu references. Brocach (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
If we're including .ie and .uk on the basis that they're applicable, than why would we lose .eu? Surely that's just as applicable. .com is no doubt applicable as well, in addition to many other domains. CMD (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave simply as .uk or delete the lot. Mabuska (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This. But if we choose the "delete the lot" option, the ".uk" shouldn't stay on England et al either. Jon C. 15:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
This is just the talk for the Northern Ireland page. I guess if one was being consistent that would be so but does that really matter? Dmcq (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It would... to me at least. We don't need yet another example of NI being treated differently to the others just because it's "politically sensitive", etc. There's already no demonym, flag, yadda yadda yadda... Jon C. 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete the lot. This non-issue only arises as an artefact of using the full sovereign state template for the parts of the UK, rather than some region template. This field, "what domain has been delegated to this state?' is not applicable for regions of the UK (such as NI, Scotland, Wales, England), for regions of Germany (such as Bavaria), of Spain (such as Catalunya), of Italy (such as Lombardy). No discrimination against NI is intended, other than that NI is not a sovereign state and so does not qualify for delegation of a domain. The ccTLD '.uk' should be used only on the United Kingdom (of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) article; likewise .de is only for Germany, .es for Spain and .it for Italy. And .ie for Ireland (state, not island). It doen't matter what IEDR claims, IANA delegated.ie to the state not the island. It is up to the domain registrar to decide policies: .tv for example will accept registrations worldwide. It is not legitimate to put .ie in this field, because IANA did not delegate .ie to Northern Ireland. For exactly the same reason, it is not legitimate put .uk either. --Red King (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. Should have some sort of vote on this? The Roman Candle (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"This non-issue only arises as an artefact of using the full sovereign state template for the parts of the UK,..." This is the rub of the matter - although I have sympathy for the desire to use that template by folk from England, Scotland and Wales.
The appropriate template is Template:Infobox subdivision. From what I can tell, that template has all of the fields needed, without the fields that do not cause a problem.
For the sake of (not unjustified) sensitivities around the word "country", I've created the template Template:Infobox UK country. What say folk to that template being used on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? --RA (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Hilarious - acknowledge sensitivities around the word "country", then suggest that an infobo9x called "country" can be apoplied to Northern Ireland, which isn't a country.
IANA did not delegate anything to the Republic for use only within the present territory of that state. It has delegated registration rights for the .ie domain to a company that makes it equally available to registrants in both Irish jurisdictions. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a right of access to more than one top level country domain. For that reason, reference to .ie and .uk should stay here. I don't think it is necessary to retain .eu but I don't feel strongly about it. Brocach (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the problems with calling NI a country (look at the archives of this page). Never the less, the current template is use is Template:Infoxbox country. If Template:Infoxbox UK country would be so jarring, use [:Template:Infoxbox settlement]] - one redirects to the other. --RA (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Brocach please read the pdf from iedr where they have a map indicating .ie to the state, and the legal entry in the statute law from the minister of communication making it clear who .ie was assigned to. If you can show otherwse I would like to see. Murry1975 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Now, now, Brocach, I'd expect someone that takes such joy from correcting others on their spelling to spot infobo9x and apoplied – you're slipping, old boy. Re your "not a country" hypothesis, tell that to the 50 per cent of Northern Irish who identify their national identity "very strongly" as – you guessed it – Northern Irish. They do exist, you know... and in pretty big numbers. Jon C. 20:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It must get very confusing for people in NI what with people claiming to be Irish, Northern Irish, British, European etc. Jmccormac (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree the problem is in part down to the template being used. If a different one is to be used on the EWSNI page it would need to address the other current problems. For example, Scotland is not a constitutional monarchy and devolved government. Scotland is part of the UK which is a parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy, but has its own devolved government and parliament. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Less of the patronising "please read", Murry1975 - I read it long ago and actually understood it. You rest your case on the fact that in a publication produced by a small and possibly defunct design company in Donnybrook for another private company, the border is (crudely) represented in a tiny map of the island. The rest of the document makes it clear that it is not the state that operates the registry: "We, the IE Domain Registry Limited (IEDR), operate the registry for all Internet domain names ending in .ie..." and, in a source cited above that you may not have bothered to look at, IEDR accepts any registrants "situated in the 32 counties of Ireland". As for the statute, as has already been noted here, the relevant section merely authorises the Minister to "authorise, prohibit or regulate the registration and use" of .ie for certain specified purposes; it does not "make it clear" that .ie was assigned to the Minister because it was not assigned to the Minister, it is assigned to IEDR Ltd.
Jon C., we have a census here every once in a while; the figure for those choosing "Northern Irish" is 29%, not 50%, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. Unless you can explain how it is relevant. Brocach (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
@Brocach. The Irish government pass the laws on who use can it not the assembly or West Minister, if you dont like that maybe you can take it up with your local TD, oppps :O Murry1975 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you repeat that in English, or some other language please? Brocach (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
"In this Part, ‘ “.ie” domain name’ means the top level of the global domain name system assigned to Ireland according to the two-letter code in the International Standard ISO 3166-1 (Codes for Representation of Names of Countries and their Subdivision) of the International Organisation for Standardisation." from the act, note Ireland, in a legal document in the state this means, well the state. No ifs or buts, the Irish government control who uses .ie. They can let anyone, as Tuvalu do, they can direct iedr to let NI use it, as is the case, and any person or companies with trade ties- or strong ties, use it. Murry1975 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Now for the ifs and buts. Section 31 allows the Minister to make regulations controlling "the registration and use of the ie domain name in the State". The Minister has no power to make regulations that have effect in Northern Ireland, Tuvalu or whatever you're having yourself. Brocach (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we please stop with the OR about the Electronic Commerce Act? The Irish government can legislate for use of computer systems within the borders of the state, just as the UK government can (including use of .ie, should it so wish) — Stormont cannot, telecommunications is a reserved matter.
That does not mean the Irish state "owns" .ie. Reality is that .ie is an entry in a database in California. The people who ultimately control it are IANA (who operate in turn under the laws of California and the USA) and they entrusted management of it to IEDR, who manage it on an all-island basis — whether we like that or not.
The list of TLDs, and the delegates for each, is here: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/ In somes of cases, the delegate is a state, government or government department. That is not so in the case of Ireland. --RA (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
RA, can you put an example of the template on this page (in looking at it I could only see the source). Thanks, The Roman Candle (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Here's a start: Talk:Northern Ireland/UK country template. --RA (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hahaha Daicaregos (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Murry1975 - You are pretty much spot on. Why can't people accept the reality which has been so clearly shown by reference to the sources, i.e. (1) ICAAN assigns domain names to countries/territories; (2) ICAAN don't decide who is a country or territory - they leave that to the ISO; (3)the ISO has ascribed "ie" to the state named Ireland (not an island!, is any one disputing that?!); (4) accordingly, ICAAN have assigned ".ie" as a domain name for the Irish state; (5) as a matter of policy, the Irish state permits its agency handling domain registrations to accept applications for ".ie" domains from persons with connections to Northern Ireland and Ireland proper (but nowhere else). To pretend that things like the fact that IEDR accepts registrants "situated in the 32 counties of Ireland" changes any of this is really silly. The notion that ICAAN has not assigned the domain names to represent countries is silly too. ICAAN accept that it is for the relevant country to decide how its domain is used: Examples - UK decides any one can register a .uk (very generous of them); DPR Korea decides no one but a member of the Kim family can do so (ok I exaggerate a bit); and Ireland decides that persons connected to Ireland and/or Northern Ireland can do so......Phewww, I started this discussion and its progress and conduct has only confirmed, alas, how low WP operates. Get a grip: the reality is that ".ie" is assigned to the Ireland proper (of which NI is not a part) and the NI article should reflect this. Otherwise, we are presenting an "alternate reality" to readers. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not so. The .ie domain applies equally to both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland because the company that assigns .ie domains has so decided. The .ie domain has not been assigned to the 26 counties but to a company, without imposing political conditions. Thus, .ie domains are assigned only by that company and under rules that it decides, and it plainly does not share your perception that there is a place called "the Ireland proper (of which NI is not a part)". This is the only "reality". There may be editors here who would wish it otherwise but .ie applies, and is is one of only two top level country domains that apply, to Northern Ireland. As for your DPRK/Kim stuff, Malawi (may I call you Malawi?), stop talking bollocks. Brocach (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's apply the same logic of your first sentence above in different contexts:
  • The .uk domain applies equally to both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland because the company that assigns .uk domains has so decided;
  • The .tv domain applies equally to both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland because the company that assigns .tv domains has so decided;
-if that is the logic, why isn't .tv and many other domains listed ! Moreover, should we not list ".uk" and ".tv" on the ROI article too for good measure. After all, it is the exact same silly notion. Such nonsense. Pretending ".ie" is formally any different vis-a-vis NI than these and many other domains...
Your second sentence reads...:
  • The .ie domain has not been assigned to the 26 counties but to a company, without imposing political conditions."
This brazenly ignores that ICAAN assigns domain names to represent countries and territories in line with ISO. Pretending this is not so does not change reality.
Then we have another of your sentences, remarkable again, for its pretence to ignorance of the facts:
...".ie domains are assigned only by that company and under rules that it decides"....I guess you are pretending here that, the fact that Ireland (alone) has passed laws governing ".ie" domains is not a relevant consideration....!
Any way, you are not interested in a serious discussion. You know you have no serious argument so you are just creating clutter around the issues. Frenchmalawi (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Please would you assume good faith unless there is very good reasons otherwise and not go on with "Any way, you are not interested in a serious discussion. You know you have no serious argument so you are just creating clutter around the issues". Just because you have a political orientation of ownership does not mean it is the only valid view. Think about the Americans with their division about Republicans and Democrats - do you believe the Republicans were right about the various issues and the Democrats were wrong. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


As nobody has still been able to provide evidence showing the domain was assigned to the entire island, i have raised this matter on the wikiprojects for computing and internet in the hope of getting some additional input for this debate with people outside of the whole NI/ROI issues and focused on the specifics of what is or isnt a country domain and if one has been assigned to a state or to a island. [7] and [8] BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Increasingly daft - no-one has ever claimed that internet domains are assigned to land masses; nor are they assigned to states; they are assigned to registries, in this case IEDR Ltd, and it is up to the registry to determine use. Do you really need to recruit a flock of experts to explain this to you? Brocach (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brocach!! I assumed good faith in the beginning. That's as it should be. After a while, it became very obvious politics was in play here. Like your response above. You (and others) have ignored my comparison, where I made the following comparisons:
  • The .uk domain applies equally to both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland because the company that assigns .uk domains has so decided;
  • The .tv domain applies equally to both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland because the company that assigns .tv domains has so decided;
-if that is the logic, why isn't .tv and many other domains listed ! Moreover, should we not list ".uk" and ".tv" on the ROI article too for good measure."
How can I assume good faith when editors are not engaging with the discussion? I'd love to hear thoughtful responses from you and others to the points I have made! But not more silliness - as that's all the discussion has got to at this point.
Also you know very well that the domain names have been assigned by ICAAN to represent states and territories in line with ISO. IE is for Ireland proper. That agencies/companies administer them doesn't change this.... Frenchmalawi (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no bad faith on the part of Brocach. However administrators are pretty strict about blocking people who can't interact civilly on Ireland related pages. Could you just leave that sort of stuff out of here please. Dmcq (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for civility. Would you be kind enough to address the points I have raised? I don't want the discussion to veer off into personalities and the like. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi RA !! I’d like you to consider some of the points you have made and come back to me on these queries. You seem like a serious editor so, I would be happy to continue with a serious discussion with you!
  • You said “The Irish government can legislate for use of computer systems within the borders of the state, just as the UK government can (including use of .ie, should it so wish)” [My comment: Obviously I agree with you, I certainly have never disputed this]
  • That does not mean the Irish state "owns" .ie. Reality is that .ie is an entry in a database in California. The people who ultimately control it are IANA (who operate in turn under the laws of California and the USA) and they entrusted management of it to IEDR, who manage it on an all-island basis — whether we like that or not. [My comment: Obviously I agree with you, I certainly have never disputed this]
  • The list of TLDs, and the delegates for each, is here: http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/ In somes of cases, the delegate is a state, government or government department. That is not so in the case of Ireland. [My comment: Obviously I agree with you, I certainly have never disputed this]
But what about all the points you are not addressing at all!!!! I’d like you to address these too, including:
  • Pt. 1 - That “.ie” is assigned by IANNA to represent Ireland proper, not the island.
  • Pt. 2 - That the status of “.ie” vis-a-vis Northern Ireland is exactly the same as “.tv” and many other country domain names which persons in NI can register if they choose. It does not have the special status of “.uk” (being the domain name assigned by IANNA to represent the country of which NI is a part). If you think otherwise, explain exactly why “.ie” has a status in NI which is different to “.tv”. Obviously, “.tv” is picked here as an example.
  • Pt. 3 - That IANNA looks to the local law (which would be Irish law for “.ie”) and local Government (which in this case would be the Irish Government) where it makes decisions concerning “.ie”. See for example, how IANNA handled this request from the entity running “.tw” IANA Report - Delegation of the .台灣 and .台湾 (“Taiwan”) domains representing Taiwan, Province of China in Chinese to Taiwan Network Information Center
  • Pt. 4 - That IEDR in its management of “.ie” is subject to the laws of Ireland (not the UK or any other country) in its management of “.ie”.
When coming back on these points, would you be kind enough to confirm if you actually disagree with each pt. (1-4). Thanks!!! Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Answering your 4 questions and ignoring the load of references you added which say nothing except bulk to the discussion that I can see:
As far as I can see .ie was not assigned by IANA because IANA didn't exist when .ie was assigned to UCD, it seems to have been one person Jon Postel handing out the ISO country codes as a good way to start up the internet.
No the status of .ie vis a vis Northern Ireland is not the same as that of .tv. Any people in Northern Ireland who wish to assert an Irish culture and citizenship have a ri8ght under British law to have that recognised.
Yes IANA says the assignee should respect various policies including that the desires of the national government be taken very seriously. Ireland has passed a law saying a Minister could regulate the .ie domain but has not actually done anything that I can see.
IEDR is a company based in Ireland and is thus subject to Irish law. The domain .tv domain is run by a company based in America so this doesn't show anything much.
Overall I agree with you that .ie should not be listed as an official state internet domain name. However there are other considerations, Northern Ireland isn't the United Kingdom state which argues for not including this at all, and people in Northern Ireland have an official right to have an Irish identity recognised which would argue for including .ie if .uk is included. It would be perfectly alright to just describe it as being allowed for use by all people in Ireland. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Dmcq!!! I think you tried but to me your reasoning here is desperately feeble....Rather pathetic really....That's not meant in a "put down" way, just an honest assessment:
  • Re Jon Postel etc. Wow - You are asserting that IANNA does not control the central root and the assignment of country domains! As if ".ie" has nothing to do with IANNA because it was Jon Postel's baby....You need to come up with some pretty remarkable sources to back this assertion up! In other words, that's nonsense. IANNA is the authority, not the late Jon Postel. I think you are alone and no one else will support you in the notion that ".ie" is ineritence disposed of by the late Jon Postel....
  • What does your notion that "Any people in Northern Ireland who wish to assert an Irish culture and citizenship have a ri8ght [sic] under British law to have that recognised." to do with ".ie". People can assert whatever culture they like. That wont change the fact that ".ie" is assigned to Ireland proper, not an island ! ".ie" and ".tv". are not domain names assigned to represent the country of which NI is part. In that sense, they are foreign domain names in NI. They are exactly and equally foreign. Nationality laws in NI and UK don't affect any of this! Nor does the Good Friday Agreement etc. !!
  • Not sure what you point is about where IEDR and the .tv company are incorporated ? Fancy elaborating? I'd like to know how you think that contradicts any point I have made. I think you haven't understood any of what I explained about above as regards ICAAN's recognition of local law... You haven't twigged, it appears, that when dealing with country domains, it looks to local law of the country concerned (.ie = Irish law)....But if you think I'm missing something, pray do let us know. That Tuvalu law has permitted a foreign incorporated registry to manage .tv....so what, whats your point?
  • In my opinion notions like the idea "people in Northern Ireland have an official right to have an Irish identity recognised which would argue for including .ie if .uk is included." etc. are firstly totally irrelevant to what we are discussing. It so happens they are also nonsense when you stop and think about it. When was the last time the Irish flag few over Stormont? There is no equal recognition of Irish identity in NI. It's part of the UK and its official symbols are all British. There has not been one iota of change around this. To the extent that the domain name is a "symbol", it's the exact same. ".ie" has no more status in NI than ".tv".
  • I'd still like to hear RA's responses as I have the impression he might be a serious editor. Frenchmalawi (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, irrespective of your long, rambling and manichean posts, you seriously need to check your tone. You will find that basic politeness might encourage people to actually engage with you to explain why you're thinking on this topic is so wrong headed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.48 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anon!! I seriously believe we all need to engage in a robust discussion. I am polite - but robust discussion involves clear, umambiguous discussion - when people adduce really weak arguments, it's necessary to call that out. That doesn't make for coziness but I am polite. If you think I am not, be specific and tell me what I have said that is not polite. PS, I'd be more interested in hearing your views on the discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I really think you have a funny idea of what the British government thought it was doing when it signed those agreements and ended the troubles in Northern Ireland. The symbols of the country are of the UK and Northern Ireland which is proper and right, after all the majority wish to stay with Britain and assert a British identity, but we're not talking about a symbol of the country here. We're talking about the minority community and their peoples rights and culture. As to the Postel business etc I was just correcting your facts plus it is spelt IANA. Dmcq (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't consider your response above a serious response warranting discussion. That's my polite opinion. Any serious editors out there want to take this up? Frenchmalawi (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
The words that suggest themselves Frenchmalawi, in response not just to that comment but the total lameness of your obsession here are "desperately feeble....Rather pathetic really" Now I wonder where I got that from? ----Snowded TALK 13:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe the ICANN Principles for Delegation and Administration of ccTLDs makes it very clear. It states: "Delegee" means the organisation, enterprise or individual designated by the relevant government or public authority to exercise the public trust function of a ccTLD and consequently recognised through a communication between ICANN and the designated entity for that purpose. It also states The delegee should recognise that ultimate public policy authority over the relevant ccTLD rests with the relevant government or public authority. It's clear that the .ie domain is essentially assigned to the Irish government, and ultimately controlled by the Irish government. --HighKing (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's been pointed out umpteen times that ICAAN assigns domains to represent ISO countries/territories!!!" And each of those umpteen times it has been wrong.” The above was a response I saw to one of my posts....I challenge that Editor to give us a narrative of what IANNA did in this report

  • [IANA Report on Delegation of the .ME Domain ...which is particularly intereting as it concerns delegationof a country domain ...and includes reference to the criteria, e.g. "The prospective manager has the requisite authority to operate the TLD appropriately, with the desire of the government taken very seriously. (ICP-1 §a, GAC Principles)" and "According to RFC 1591 and ICP-1, IANA needs to respect the ability for a local Internet community as well as local law and local government to make decisions about the operation of a TLD.".

It is an example of a country domain name that has been assigned by IANNA. I challenge that Editor to read the IANNA report and explain how (which appears to be his contention) that “.mk” (being the example here) is not to represent a country/territory listed on the ISO list. I challenge that Editor to explain, how he feels comfortable divorcing that domain name from the State concerned (in this case Montenegro, obviously Ireland applies for .ie but we don't have a report for it because it's assigned many years ago). Go ahead! Explain that report and how exactly Montenegro (independent country) relates to “.me”. Give it some thought and show me the errors of my ways... I would politely ask you to focus on the substantive issue (that ".ie" represents Ireland not any part of any other country) on the point, not side issues.Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IANA not IANNA. ICANN not ICAAN. IANA is managed by ICANN but most of the major ccTLDs have been delegated prior to the creation of either. IANA evaluates proposals to delegate or redelegate based on specific criteria. This is a world away from what you think seems to happen. Repurposed ccTLDs, where the registry or operator decides to expand the ccTLD's use beyond its original country/territory market, are quite common. The most recent high profile repurposed ccTLD is .co ccTLD. The sponsoring organisation for .me is the government of Montenegro. It is administered by the .me registry and it is an open ccTLD. It is still the ccTLD for Montenegro despite what you may think. Most ccTLD registries originated in university computer science departments and were often run on a voluntary basis with no fees being payable for the registration of a domain name. The policy for these ccTLDs were often decided on an as-needed basis by the registry and the local internet community. Today, there are more effective policy making procedures. The sponsoring organisation for the .mk ccTLD is the government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia though I think that you might be getting it confused with .me ccTLD. Jmccormac (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Show nothing

Notwithstanding the point above about who has been assigned the domain, the main point is geographical or geopolitical relevance. A domain has this type of relevance only if limitations are set in the rules as set out by the registrar. Some domains have no limitations, but that does not make them relevant to a geographic area. Only those domains that set out defined and specific geographic or geopolitical boundaries are relevant to those areas included in those boundaries. Hence the relevance of ".ie" and ".eu". We've gone around in circles on this, and there's no consensus to change the article. Although I'm slowly coming around to the idea that we should not have any ccTLD's for Northern Ireland since the NI government doesn't communicate with ICANN for a ccTLD designated under RFC1591 and ISO-3166 --HighKing (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What you say is essentially correct, unlike the majority of ramblings from the uninformed contributors above, whose main thurst is politics rather than accuracy. The .ie domain deserves a mention, but as a footnote, with .uk being the sole domain mentioned in the infobox field. However, as you suggest - and as I've also suggested - a compromise is to remove the field from the infobox, as in RA's template, but it's important that it should also be removed from the Eng, Sco and Wal articles as well. This is an easy solution. It is also accurate in that domains aren't, or haven't been, awarded to any of the constituent countries of the UK, so I commend this approach. The Roman Candle (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not just a compromise, it is correct. IANA has not delegated a ccTLD code to Northern Ireland, so none should be given. The field was designed for 'domain allocated', not for 'domains used'. I strongly support RA's template since it is the only one that will prevent repeated cases of proxy flag waving. --Red King (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
No objection to that but it would be nice to have some sort of idea though of what to do when domains like .scot or .kurd are allocated and it becomes harder to say something like .cat is nonsense and ignore the problem. (just had a look at [9], .kurd doesn't seem to be getting anywhere yet but there is an application for .irish. I found the list very interesting) Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
The field as it stands (in the sovereign state version of the template) is strictly for country code top level domains (ccTLD)s like .uk, .fr, .us etc. These are under national control (but may be outsourced) and are delegated by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). If Scotland achieves independence, it will get one of these (goodness knows what - all the obvious ones like sc, sd, sa, as, al are all gone).
However, the generic Top Level Domains like .com, .net and .int, and the new ones like .asia, .travel, .jobs, .mobi, etc. are under ICANN control and they sell the rights to manage them (essentially selling domains under them). The proposed new gTLDs like .scot, .cymru .kurd, .amazon, .google etc fall into the latter category and will be very expensive indeed. Whoever buys .scot or .cymru will need to do a lot to recoup his/her investment! I guess this will be for talk:Scotland and talk.Wales to argue. For now, let's just aim for a resolution to the Norn Iron case. --Red King (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure that showing nothing is a good idea. The main TLDs in NI are .uk ccTLD, .com TLD and .ie ccTLD. Eurid does not break down the statistics for NI and includes them with UK figures. The way that this issue is being bulldozed by Frenchmalawi would lead one to wonder about Good Faith editing. It might be possible to ask Nominet for a registration figure for NI. The web hosting market in Ireland is a complex market and there are NI companies hosting ROI clients and vice versa. The number .uk ccTLD domains hosted on Irish webhosters is actually higher than the number of .net TLD domains hosted on those webhosters. There was some attempt to market the .ni ccTLD (Nicuragua) as being the NI TLD but it really didn't take off and there was a change in regulations, I think, that caused problems. I am not concerned with the politics of the issue as my main work deals with domain name/webhosting industry. The article should really reflect the current situation in NI and that seems to be that the most popular TLDs in NI are .uk, .com and .ie. Jmccormac (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I've being using Wikipedia jargon. 'Put nothing' when filling in a template has the effect that that option is not shown. In this case, 'internet domain (allocated)' would not appear when no information is given. RA's proposal is better, because the option would not even exist. The argument about 'which domains do we use?' is entirely beside the point as there has never been a space in the template for any country in the world for that. --Red King (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jmccormac that the article should reflect the current situation, which seems to be that the TLDs relevant in NI are .uk, .com and .ie. Daicaregos (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, its basic information that has utility and there is no need for all this verbiage playing symbolic games. Its probably no coincidence that the Belfast protests are happening in parallel. Leave the article as it is ----Snowded TALK 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
An interesting juxtaposition, each component of which has common elements; reduce emphasis on the British angle, then remove it, then replace it with the Irish angle. So we start with .uk, then we have .uk and .ie, and then maybe we have just .ie, or maybe .ie in a superior position, and if we can't get that, then we don't have anything. And so it is with the flag on City Hall, Belfast; reduce the days it flies from 365 to 21, then maybe don't fly it at all, or maybe have the tricolour there as well, the longterm aim being to just have the tricolour. I've noticed a similar situation here at Wikipedia with the use of a flag for Northern Ireland. Getting back to .uk and .ie, Snowded and Daicaregos, you have both completely missed the point about the purpose of that part of the infobox, but I expect you know you've missed the point anyway. It really boils down to a simple fact; .uk is the TLD applicable to Northern Ireland and .ie isn't. However, to be accurate we should remove the line from all the constituent country infoboxes, since the .uk TLD has not actually been assigned to any of them. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Which flag for Northern Ireland do you mean? Daicaregos (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
None in particular, it's just that flags and NI are a big issue on Wikipedia, as in real life. The Roman Candle (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't missed the point Roman Candle and your response I think demonstrates I was spot on. We should record what is used regardless of what we think should be ----Snowded TALK 17:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The point that you have missed, The Roman Candle, is that (as has been said here many times) internet domains are not assigned to governments but to registrars who then decide, subject to any laws that are applied to them by governments, where those domains shall be made available. The top-level country domain available in England, Scotland and Wales is .uk; the top-level country domain available in the Republic of Ireland is .ie; and the top-level country domains available in Northern Ireland are .ie and .uk. There is no need to strip useful information out of the infoboxes for the four parts of the UK , particularly as that would then leave the .ie domain listed only in the Republic of Ireland infobox, giving the inaccurate impression that it is only available in that jurisdiction. Brocach (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh well, that's me told. Brocach (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite so, but if you'd like an expansion, here goes; virtually everything you say is incorrect. No if or buts, just plain wrong. The only point you're right about is where you mention domains being available in various places, but that is irrelevant to the current debate. The Roman Candle (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, you're wrong to claim that what Brocach said was wrong. :-) Brocach is technically correct on most everything he has said in the para above. We're really just dancing around the meaning of "assigned". We could equally say that there's more than one type of responsibility being recognized and rights being assigned. The domain is "assigned" to the Delegee for administration and management. The ultimate responsibility of the rules governing the domain is assigned to the relevant government or public authority. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
You need to understand Brocach that you can't be right, because then Roman Candle might just have to admit that this very minor issue is not the final compromise with Fenianism which results in the collapse of civilisation as he knows it.----Snowded TALK 19:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe he/she (though I think you're right, Snowded) could at least say what is incorrect in the statement "internet domains are not assigned to governments but to registrars"; in the case of .ie, that was originally University College Dublin Computing Services Computer Centre, and is now IEDR Ltd. It might keep him/her off the streets for a while trying to find anything wrong with that. Brocach (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
HighKing's already explained it. See above. By the way, I'm a 'he' (see my user page). The Roman Candle (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Au contraire. HighKing manages to take a text saying that "Delegee" means the organisation, enterprise or individual designated by the relevant government or public authority to exercise the public trust function of a ccTLD... ultimate public policy authority over the relevant ccTLD rests with the relevant government or public authority and read that as "clearly" establishing that "the .ie domain is essentially assigned to the Irish government, and ultimately controlled by the Irish government". What it actually establishes is (1) that governments are expected not to run the domain themselves, but to entrust that task to another organisation, enterprise or individual; and (2) that the government retains "public policy authority" over the domain. In .ie's case, the Irish government has never had that domain assigned to it, "essentially" or otherwise; rather, it recognised the long-standing arrangement, arrived at with no known government input, that existed first with UCD, then with IEDR Ltd; and the Irish government's public policy in relation to .ie is not to exercise any control, and certainly not to interfere in any way with the decision of the controlling registrar to extend the application of the domain to the whole of Ireland. Brocach (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe you've captured the historical aspects of the ".ie" domain, and I agree with them. But the IANA has moved on since then, and the situation regarding ccTLD's has since changed. For example, the "Delegee" is chosen by the relevant "Government", and equally, that Government can take the registrar function away from one Delegee and reassign it to another. ICANN cannot assign a ccTLD to a Delegee of their own choice. Also, the Delegee provisions a recognition that the management and administration of the ccTLD are subject to the ultimate authority of the relevant government, and must conform with relevant domestic laws and regulations, and international law and international conventions. --HighKing (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Roman Candle - I think I am on the same page as you. I enjoyed your comparisons with Belfast City Hall....Though I think the fact that the Irish state gets listed as "ROI" everywhere shows that all this politics cuts various ways.... I know nothing about you or your editing history but would guess (I may well be wrong) you support the "ROI" naming arrangements on Wiki....If so, if a State can't even get its name...can we complain about a little domain name...! Any way, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about but I had a chuckle reading your bit so thought I'd post this. Keep up what you are saying. I really don't respect the posts of most other editors here. I gave extremely detailed arguments that were ignored. On the evidence, it's an "open and shut case" but politics is in play here...Best of luck!!! Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessary, Frenchmalawi, we had noticed your lack of respect and that "politics is in play". Some of us are trying to keep WP as a neutral space that merely records the realities around us, such as the applicability of internet domain names to particular territories. Others would rather delete useful information from multiple articles than allow one politically unpalatable fact to be recorded on one article. Brocach (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Brocach !! I think that's unfair to say I am showing a "lack of respect". We will have to disagree on that. "
This was posted above...Maybe [The Roman Candle]..could at least say what is incorrect in the statement "internet domains are not assigned to governments but to registrars" Guys - It's been pointed out umpteen times that ICAAN assigns domains to represent ISO countries/territories!!! .ie is assigned to represent Ireland proper! ICAAN also defers to sovereign governments concerning those domains (I posted loads of reports showing this). That a sovereign government supports a particular entity (IEDR for .ie) is irrelevant! Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"I really don't respect the posts of most other editors here." Frenchmalawi, 00:48. "I think that's unfair to say I am showing a "lack of respect"." Frenchmalawi, 01:01. Nothing further, m'lud. Brocach (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Jumping in here Brocach - It's not disrespectful in my opinion. People don't typically respect posts unless a bit of thought goes into them. I can't respect thoughtless posts. I certainly do respect the posts of those editors who go to the trouble and time of giving it some thought, reasoning their posts properly etc. In my opinion, it is disrespectful of the Wiki project to make thoughtless posts....But this is all off topic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Jimping right back - if you post something like "I really don't respect the posts of most other editors here" and then think it "unfair" to suggest that you lack respect, you need to ask yourself whether your posts are as thoughtful and reasoned as they should be. Brocach (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it is really they have a different outlook and regards states as more important than almost anything else. Personally I see that as rather medieval with its kings and absolute rule, but I'm sure UKIP for instance would agree with it. You can see that with the business of going on about 'Republic of Ireland' for the country article. Yes it would be nice if the article was titled Ireland but there's problems and editors came to a conclusion about what had to give. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
"It's been pointed out umpteen times that ICAAN assigns domains to represent ISO countries/territories!!!" And each of those umpteen times it has been wrong. IANA "assigns" country code domains but most country codes are based on ISO 3166-1. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD. Many ccTLDs predate the formation of ICANN too and ICANN is not in the business of deciding which country or territory gets what ccTLD. Now for the second error. "internet domains are not assigned to governments but to registrars" If you don't know the difference between a registry (the administrator of a TLD) and registrar (an organisation that registers domains on behalf of clients) then you really shouldn't be commenting on the mistakes of others. The DNS Root Zone is controlled by The US Department of Commerce but administered by IANA. Historically the position on .ie ccTLD was somewhat unclear with the relevant Minister having final say over the administration of the ccTLD. That was changed so that ComReg manages policy and IEDR administrates the ccTLD. The .ie ccTLD is still delegated to UCD's Computer Science department. The .ie ccTLD is a managed TLD where registrants have to meet certain conditions. This makes it quite different to open TLDs such as .tv and .me which permit global registrations. Registrants from NI can register .ie domains as easily as ROI registrants. The "significant connection" condition applies to registrants in Scotland, England and Wales. This makes .ie quite different to open or repurposed ccTLDs such as .tv and .me. The reason I have not engaged with Frenchmalawi's arguments is simply because they are, for the most part, based on misunderstandings and errors. At this stage, it is quite clear that many of us here are trying to keep Wikipedia apolitical and based on reality. Frenchmalawi's crusade to have NI's page changed purely for what appears to be a political agenda (though it could be just some strange obsession with NI) is wearing a bit thin. Jmccormac (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
More than a bit; it's astonishing how many otherwise perfectly useful words have been sacrificed on this campaign. Yes, I shouldn't have used using "registrar" loosely in its ordinary sense as "someone who runs a registry", as there is (usually) a distinction in the arcane world of domain names; but I can't help pointing out that for .ie, IEDR Ltd is both the registry and a registrar, in that it flogs .ie domains itself. Brocach (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The terms can be quite specific in the industry but it wasn't a criticism of your use of the terms. IEDR (the registry) is also what is sometimes referred to as a registrar of last resort. This enables people or organisations who would not want to register a domain via the ordinary registrars to register domains directly with IEDR. About ten years ago, there were some concerns about IEDR competing with its own registrars but the bulk of .ie registrations now go through .ie registrars. Jmccormac (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty expensive to go to them direct, that seems to be a common way of doing things with other domains as well. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Some people seem to be very confused here. (a) ICANN (not IANA) determines who may be the registrar for generic TLDs. (b) IANA delegates Country code TLDs on the basis of ISO3166 to national governments. In what the USofA quaintly called 'The Free World', this function is almost always outsourced - to IEDR in Ireland, to Nominet in the UK and so on. In extremely rare cases, where there is not a functioning government or where the integrity of the DNS might be compromised, it will recognize a de facto national registrar.
But none of this matters. This field applies only to sovereign states. Its purpose is to show which ccTLD has been allocated to the state. Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state, so the field does not apply in this instance and should not be used. It is not designed to show which domains people use. Now will people please stop rioting at each other and RTFM! (meaning {{template:infobox country}} --Red King (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Its the country template not the sovereign state template, and citizens of NI have the right to adopt one of two sovereign states so we reflect reality at the moment, not dogma.----Snowded TALK 20:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't be silly. The field is for domain assigned, not domain used. There are tens of domains available to people in NI. They don't matter. --Red King (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's been pointed out umpteen times that ICAAN assigns domains to represent ISO countries/territories!!!" And each of those umpteen times it has been wrong.” The above was a response I saw to one of my posts....I challenge that Editor to give us a narrative of what IANNA did in this report

  • [IANA Report on Delegation of the .ME Domain ...which is particularly intereting as it concerns delegationof a country domain ...and includes reference to the criteria, e.g. "The prospective manager has the requisite authority to operate the TLD appropriately, with the desire of the government taken very seriously. (ICP-1 §a, GAC Principles)" and "According to RFC 1591 and ICP-1, IANA needs to respect the ability for a local Internet community as well as local law and local government to make decisions about the operation of a TLD.".

I challenge you to explain the report, specifically:

  • (1) Does Montenegro (independent ISO listed country) have any connection with the “.me” domain?
  • Does Spain (independent ISO listed country) have a different relationship to the “.me” domain?
  • If the “.me” registry decided to permit registrations of “.me” domains by persons in Spain, would that mean we should list “.me” on the Spain page?

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No because for the umpteenth time, that field is for the ccTLD allocated to the country, Spain - which is .es. It is not for the domains available to Spanish people (of which there are tens). --Red King (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The most popular domains in various countries tend to follow a particular pattern. Mature country level markets tend to have the local ccTLD dominating with a ccTLD/.com axis representing 80% or more of the domain footprint for the country (the UK and Germany would be the best examples for this). With NI, the main TLDs are .uk/.com/.ie. The other TLDs (typically .net/org/biz/info/mobi/eu) each tend to occupy single digit percentages of the country's domain market. The position of .com in most country's domain footprint is due to its legacy position and the DotCom bubble but as a market matures, the local ccTLD overtakes it in terms of registrations. Each country tends to have a small set of TLDs which accounts for the majority of domains registered in that country. With the US the most popular TLD (and arguably the US's de facto ccTLD)is actually .com whereas the de jure ccTLD is .us ccTLD. Again with Spain and .es, having TLDs available for registration does not mean that Spanish people will register domains in these TLD in large or significant numbers. The domain count for .es in November 2012 was 1,612,733 (.es registry figure) but the number of Spanish .eu registrations at present(Eurid statistics) is 105,524. There are approximately 1 million Spanish owned/hosted .com domains, approximately 148K .net domains, approximately 98K .org domains, approximately 14.5K .biz domains and approximately 48K .info domains on the nameservers of Spanish webhosters. The bulk of domain registrations are clustered around the ccTLD/com axis. Jmccormac (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Països Catalans doesn't show .cat in its infobox so I'd have thought just removing the internet tld field here was reasonable. As to .me the reply has already been given as regards .tv above by Jmccormac. The .me domain is operated as a generic name rather than a closed one. Dmcq (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd like the editor who originally made the comment (Jmccormac) to respond. He might be a serious editor and I'd like to hear his responses if he is. Sorry Dmcq, but to me your reples above were like jibberish in terms of relevance from my perspective...RK's has a clear view which I am fine with and agree with. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry I'm used to people not getting what I say despite my efforts. You haven't though actually said anything new for Jmccormac to respond to that I can see, replacing .tv with .me has not added any content to your argument. Dmcq (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Frenchmalawi, if you are going to throw reports about, the least you could do is read them and make some effort to understand what they are about and what they mean. IANA evaluates delegation and redelegation requests. It does not just decide to delegate ccTLDs on a whim. The government of Montenegro is the sponsoring organisation for .me ccTLD. The .me ccTLD is an open ccTLD in which people from Spain (and other countries) can register domains. The .es ccTLD is the ccTLD for Spain. The .me ccTLD is an open/generic ccTLD. It appears that you are just throwing reports and comments around in what seems to be a campaign to have .ie removed from the NI page.Jmccormac (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Jmccormac - I challenge you to answer my questions (put above). Answer them (1), (2) and (3). I note you haven't even attempted to answer them and ignore statements in the report like "In accordance with ICANN’s performance of these functions, IANA received a request for the delegation of the .ME top-level domain. This domain is designated in the ISO 3166-1 standard for Montenegro, a European country with a population of approximately 700,000. The application for delegation was received on 24 December 2006." I'm disappointed with your reply. My challenge to you stands. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to close

I hope I have that right; one or two shifted positions during the debate, which is allowed, even on Wikipedia. I'd say that the weight of opinion against a proposal supported by only three editors means that we should each go and have a nice cup of tea and forget that this ever happened. Brocach (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

SO you are quite happy to appear ridiculous to the rest of Wikipedia, which can tell the difference between domain assigned and domain used. And if you insist on having domain used, why have you left out .com, .net. .tv, .me, .travel, .jobs etc etc.? --Red King (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Amended the list to put myself under show nothing as well as leave both. Probably best to do the same sort of business with Mabuska rather than showing combinations. Dmcq (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::No consensus has emerged for change. No-one is ridiculous. Just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. It's time to close, thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Red King that this is ridiculous. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing prompted by others' edits to my post, I decided that BritishWatcher (who had been accorded an extra two votes by those edits) settled for ".uk or show nothing". Created an extra category for Dmcq but Mabuska's contribution was unambiguous. It is absolutely clear that the proposal has failed. Brocach (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've moved myself to leave only UK or show nothing. I'd be happy to support its removal as NI isn't a state, but not while England, Scotland and Wales still have .uk. Jon C. 12:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Eight editors want to leave things as they are. The majority remainder want, or would accept, some sort of change, so now is not the time to move on, it is the time to decide what the change should be. My preference at this point is to remove the TLD box from all the UK countries, but failing that, leave .uk for Northern Ireland, with a footnote explaining about .ie. The Roman Candle (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I've added my name to the "show both or do nothing" option also. --HighKing (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
HK, can you clarify yor preference? It's headed "Leave [show] both or show nothing. The Roman Candle (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - it's the last option above. Leave both or show nothing. --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Fairness - I put my own name after several options and at least one was removed.
Fairness - I put British Watcher's name after a few options too (saying I had done so) because he clearly expressed openness to several options.
Can we re-start poll and get people to actually record their own preferences? Right now it's wrong....As some one has just put down what they think people want. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I also think we should just drop a message on the talk page of the editors who participated telling them about the poll....Is that ok to do? Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I deleted your vote for "remove .ie, leave .uk" because you also voted for "leave .uk or show nothing"; the second option encapsulates the first and I couldn't think of a good enough reason why you should be allowed multiple votes while everyone else had one. It is, of course, OK to notify people in neutral terms that the poll is happening. It is not OK to canvass support for your views. It is not OK to vote, as you have done, as a self-appointed proxy for others. If you vote many times in your own poll, expect everyone else to vote as often as they choose. Do not expect a different outcome. Brocach (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
it's pretty obvious that there are multiple potential solutions...so it follows, we have to be able to support more than one option....Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"It is not OK to vote, as you have done, as a self-appointed proxy for other" - Brocach, hold on there a second. No one voted here....An editor put down other editors names after options. I did the same (for BW). Hope you aren't suggesting I did anything wrong. Any way, I have opened a poll so we can actually vote and avoid these sorts of arguments. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper Poll (each editor to vote)

If Frenchmalawi has three votes, so have we all, pile in there lads and let's see if this produces a consensus in favour of change. Brocach (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I was mistaken. Only Frenchmalawi is allowed three votes; I am only allowed one (two others deleted by Jon C.). In which case, I'll withdraw altogeher and wait for a more sensible poll. Brocach (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
This is getting insane. No consensus for change emerged and now another poll where each editor gets multiple votes in attempt to force some consensus for change is added? At this stage, it seems that Frenchmalawi is on a bit of a crusade to have .ie removed from the NI page. Jmccormac (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Jmccormac - Please assume good faith. What have I done to deserve being spoken of in that manner "crusade" etc. We have a disagreement about content (I don't think its consistent with WP practice that a foreign country's domain name should be listed where all other WP articles list a national domain name - I've given plenty of reasons, and various people agree with me). Please treat me with some courtesy. Same goes to Snowded (re below post) Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
His general failure to avoid personal attacks and general failure to listen put him close to an ANI report and his latest messing around here inclines me to just say leave it as it is, close the thread. Two or three of his comments make it very very clear this is a political campaign, not an attempt to improve the article----Snowded TALK 10:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Guys - it's pretty obvious that there are multiple potential solutions...so it follows, we have to be able to support more than one option....Maybe the poll will identify an option that commands great support. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, Snowded - obviously I disagree with your suggestions that somehow I am out of line. It seems like a personal attack is being made against me, but I don't want to get side tracked. Let's just carry on and hope to get a consensus. Frenchmalawi (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Political campaign? As far as I can see the only political campaigning is by those who would rather paint the e-kerb-stones red/white/blue or green/white/orange. Why go for accuracy when a POV is available? (and btw, I didn't see FrenchMalawi make any personal attacks. Accusing him of doing so without good reason is itself a personal attack). --Red King (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Red King. Appreciate it. I'm for robust discussion and challenging each other, but I hate personal attacks and "threats" like threatening complaints against me. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Could you try and be a bit less 'robust' in your discussion then please and perhaps people will be a bit less 'robust' with you. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
If there is to be a poll could it have some system to it please rather than being a higgledy piggledy list of options and combinations with duplications and omissions thank. My preference would be fora list of the distinct implementation options - e.g. keep both, not keep both or neither, and have people put in their name for each option they can live with. So yes there would be multiple votes. There are other ways of doing it like having every combination and a name being only put down once for the exact combination they can support. And most complex would be something with a list in order of supported options per person and then some way of judging either what has the most support or the least opposition.
Anyway as a start I'd like to propose we just have the 3 options (amended to 4)
  • Show .uk and .ie and .eu
  • Show .uk and .ie only
  • Show .uk and .eu only
  • Show .uk only
  • Show nothing
And people can put their name on each of the options they can live with easily without complaint. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Dmcq....You've included ".eu" - in one of the options above...That would, accidentally I am sure, distort the mental process: I for one have no problem with ".eu" but would never vote for option 1 so what am I supposed to do? Agree with the principle of narrowing the options....If it could be amended to omit reference to ".eu" and leave that to a separate discussion if people want to discuss ".eu" that might be a good way....Otherwise, I like your 3 neat options. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the point of having a second discussion about .eu. I've put in .eu with .uk and if you are happy whether it is in or out you can put your name against both. Dmcq (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think adding .eu into the mix was unhelpful if you wanted just 3 options. Because of it we now have to have 5 options as Show .uk and .ie only' has to go in as well (otherwise it would be inconsistent). I think we started off with five options to begin with so not sure what the point of all this was in the end ....but I happy for you to restart a poll with those 5 options. A discussion of ".eu" would only have been needed if it had been raised. Any way, c'est la vie. We are back to five options. Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The poll could be a lot easier than that, with just two options: 1, do it according to ISO 3166.1 and IANA - or - 2, do it according to some random POV. That's the real choice. --Red King (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Red King but this is Wiki....Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)